The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[jassi]

"Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not"

The book is based on the conclusion of the files as was,

The judge has already said

MC – Then there are no revelations!

So with no difference between the book & the files, the original files would have to be deemed libellous aswell.

Is the judge not just clarifying what the witness is saying, rather than saying that is her opinion?

[Redblossom]

ORLY. 

John said that Amaral had "Met" The McCanns, which he obviously hadn't.  But still felt justified in writing a book about people he had never even spoken to.

And Amaral was only a Chief Inspector.  So are you saying that Amaral never personally questioned anyone?  I seem to remember he questioned Robert Murat, and threatened to "Get" him somehow or another.

He wrote a book about the CASE...not about two people

[Benice]

So you agree that he did not meet them?

If he had time to sit watching them - why didn't he spend that same time talking to them?  I've never seen any claim from Amaral that he ever watched them.  Where has this come from?

He had a whole book to make it clear that he had never met or spoken to them - but not once does he even hint at that - in fact by the use of the word -  'we' -  he positively avoids it IMO.        Would the book have had the same impact if the reader knew that actually nothing in it was an account of his own first hand experience of the McCanns -  because the truth was he'd never met them.       I don't think so.   

[jassi]

If he had time to sit watching them - why didn't he spend that same time talking to them?  I've never seen any claim from Amaral that he ever watched them.  Where has this come from?

He had a whole book to make it clear that he had never met or spoken to them - but not once does he even hint at that - in fact by the use of the word -  'we' -  he positively avoids it IMO.        Would the book have had the same impact if the reader knew that actually nothing in it was an account of his own first hand experience of the McCanns -  because the truth was he'd never met them.       I don't think so.

Does he actually state that it is ?

I would have thought that people read his book because they want an alternative account to that of the McCanns.

[Eleanor]

Hi Benice, wasn't the book publicised as based on the criminal investigation, not on his first hand dealings with Kate & Gerry.

No.  It was based on his honour, according to him.

[Redblossom]

No.  It was based on his honour, according to him.

No dear, the book was BASED on the police investigation.........one of the reasons for writing it was to defend himself against the putrid british tabloids shenanigans.....do keep up...

[Benice]

Hi Benice, wasn't the book publicised as based on the criminal investigation, not on his first hand dealings with Kate & Gerry.

IMO If that was true he would not have made personal remarks/comments about the McCanns intended to turn the reader against them.

IMO the parts of his book which actually refer to the case itself are a catalogue of exaggerations, spiteful innuendo, half truths, lies by omission and downright lies - and in places bears little or no resemblance to the files.

IMO He should write a book on gardening - as planting seeds appears to come naturally to him.

[Wonderfulspam]

IMO If that was true he would not have made personal remarks/comments about the McCanns intended to turn the reader against them.

IMO the parts of his book which actually refer to the case itself are a catalogue of exaggerations, spiteful innuendo, half truths, lies by omission and downright lies - and in places bears little or no resemblance to the files.

IMO He should write a book on gardening - as planting seeds appears to come naturally to him.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

[Redblossom]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does or did.  He's a crook.

In your opinion..........we all know your dripping venomous  hatred for the guy.........its frankly soooooo boring and even if he was satan...thatchanges NOTHING at all  as to the mccanns culpability, or involvement..... not one single iota....thats where your so called logic fails every single time

[Redblossom]

Amaral is a Convicted Crook. And there is absolutely no proof of The McCann's culpability.  But there is proof that Amaral is a Convicted Crook.

No not really, you should try some chamomile......helps

[Wonderfulspam]

Amaral is a Convicted Crook. And there is absolutely no proof of The McCann's culpability.  But there is proof that Amaral is a Convicted Crook.

There is also no proof of abduction & no proof the McCanns were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

[jassi]

In your opinion..........we all know your dripping venomous  hatred for the guy.........its frankly soooooo boring and even if he was satan...thatchanges NOTHING at all  as to the mccanns culpability, or involvement..... not one single iota....thats where your so called logic fails every single time

THis should be so self-evident that I cannot really understand while some people  bad-mouth him at every opportunity. I can only assume that it is an attempt to wind up those who do not slavishly worship the McCanns.

[Redblossom]

THis should be so self-evident that I cannot really understand while some people  bad-mouth him at every opportunity. I can only assume that it is an attempt to wind up those who do not slavishly worship the McCanns.

To make the mccanns seem whiter obviously....its a bad strategy.....

[jassi]

To make the mccanns seem whiter obviously....its a bad strategy.....

Indeed it is as it achieves nothing. It's interesting to watch some people foam at the mouth, though.

[Benice]

Oh perfect description for Madeleine by Kate Mccann..........cheers

And yet no-one is sueing Kate McCann for libel Red.