The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Redblossom]

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

Not everyone is a vexatious litigant in life.......seeking millions......

[jassi]

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

Why should they? - its not as if many take the book seriously.

[Benice]

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

Libel had not been estabished when that was written, so libel could not be considered when coming to that conclusion.   

This is why the current Libel case is now taking place.



   

[Eleanor]

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

I suggest you take your own advice.

[Wonderfulspam]

Libel had not been estabished when that was written, so libel could not be considered when coming to that conclusion.   

This is why the current Libel case is now taking place.



 

And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?

[Benice]

Not everyone is a vexatious litigant in life.......seeking millions......

If there was no libel there would be nothing to litigate against.   

I don't think the McCanns care that much about the money except that they would object to Amaral making a profit on Madeleine's back.     I can understand that - I would feel the same.

[Redblossom]

And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?

No it just upset them......

[Benice]

Why should they? - its not as if many take the book seriously.

And your evidence for that is.................................?

[jassi]

And your evidence for that is.................................?

Why should I need any evidence for an opinion? Can you demonstrate otherwise?

[Wonderfulspam]

If there was no libel there would be nothing to litigate against.   

I don't think the McCanns care that much about the money except that they would object to Amaral making a profit on Madeleine's back.     I can understand that - I would feel the same.

And have the McCanns (through Kates book & newspaper spreads & numerous T.V appearances) not made any money off Madeleine's back?

[Redblossom]

If there was no libel there would be nothing to litigate against.   

I don't think the McCanns care that much about the money except that they would object to Amaral making a profit on Madeleine's back.     I can understand that - I would feel the same.

No dear, people try it on all the time....as to your second para...What a joke, if they didnt care aboutthe money they wouldnt  be demanding a million quid, are you for real???

And one of their complaints in the writ was their kids might hear something in the school playground...you know...something someone night have said who maY have read the book which wasnt even published in the UK...and wanted a couple thousand grand for that......then the mccanns refuse the request to make the current triak private...so whathappened? The twins were subjected to comments in the playground, and were upset, courtesy of their own parents......couldnt make it up

[Benice]

And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?

Personally I don't think there is any doubt that the book IS libellous - a comparison with the files shows that. Whether the witnesses have proved that I don't know.     But neither do I know whether the judge has been given proof outside of this court hearing.    The Portuguese court system is becoming more bewildering by the day to me.
 
Whether it can be proved that the book hampered the search for Madeleine is not so clear as I don't see how you can quantify it's impact.   But then I'm no expert - that's just my own opinion.

 

[Aiofe]

Whether the book is libellous!

John has a very strong point....how can a police theory be libellous? When it has never been disproved? Can police theories be libellous at all? Can any theory be?
 >@@(*&)

As noted above, certain matters have privilege- exempting them from defamation proceedings. Odd Copper Novels do not.

[Aiofe]

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

Interesting point. Kate McCann makes many serious charges about Amaral, but he has never taken any action which is open to him in English Courts.

[Aiofe]

And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?

Under the Portuguese system of Law, it is up to the investigating judge to find proof of the case. It is not an adversarial system.