The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Cariad]

Let us do Libel 101 again. It is not necessary to 'tell lies' to have libelled someone.

If a remark you make causes a negative effect on the claimant, then it must be decided if this 'defamation' is libel/slander or not (terms vary between jurisdictions but the idea is the same.

The respondent may either admit libel or claima defence. One defence is 'the truth' but this defence is not absolute. There are other defences, but this is the one that applies to the need for 'lies'. Lies are not necessary for libel to be proved.

When did we do it previously 'Roger' ? I thought you didn't post on this case and you were mainly interested in Jeremy Bamber?

 

[lizzibif]

I take it very little took place at the court yesterday.

[Benice]

Experts in stupidity and incompetence if the Barry George case is anything to go by.

I don't judge SY's competence on one case from years ago which bears no resemblance to the McCann case.   

There is not a police force in the world which has a 100% success rate of always getting it right -  but I would not conclude that makes all police forces merely ''experts in stupidity and incompetence'' because of that fact.

[Montclair]

Let's see.

How many people think Stuart Prior said, in England, people have been arrested on less than the PJ had against the McCanns?

That's from Amaral's book.

John:

 I think police reports may well be covered by privilege..as are court proceedings and statements made in parliament...amaral wrote it all in a book

Hang on, hang on.  In the context of a criminal investigation where the reports are confined to the official files, yes!

But when the allegations are repeated in a publication apart from the official files, that's very different ...

Not according to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa when the book ban was overturned In October 2010. The three judges stated that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to express his opinions on the case, which are based on the police files as well as his 20 plus years experience in the PJ. You seem to believe that people do not have the right to express any opinion which might upset the McCanns, even when based on facts. In Portugal, police files and court decisions are always made public so that people can discuss them and even disagree publicly if they believe that they are not correct.

[Montclair]

Well unless his book has been incorrectly translated - it is littered with downright lies, lies by omission, gross distortions of the truth, and spiteful innuendo designed to make the reader believe what he wants them to believe regardless of whether it is factually correct or not.   

Have you not read it?   

Please give some examples!

[Mr Gray]

Not according to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa when the book ban was overturned In October 2010. The three judges stated that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to express his opinions on the case, which are based on the police files as well as his 20 plus years experience in the PJ. You seem to believe that people do not have the right to express any opinion which might upset the McCanns, even when based on facts. In Portugal, police files and court decisions are always made public so that people can discuss them and even disagree publicly if they believe that they are not correct.

the court gave an interim ruling that he had a right to express his opinions...they did not rule whether those opinions are libellous

[Benice]

Please give some examples!

I've already done that loads of times. 

For instance  -  he claims JT formally identified Murat.    That is a lie - and there is nothing in the files to support his claim.

He states as a fact that it was Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard crying - even though she never gave a name. (he gets round that little problem by not mentioning Mrs Fenn's name at all)     

He then goes on to claim that Madeleine spoke to her parents the very next morning (the 2nd). - to make the reader believe it WAS Madeleine who cried on the 1st.         That is a downright lie.  It was 2 days later when she asked her parents why they did not come when she AND Sean cried.    However, Amaral deliberately leaves out her mention of Sean's name as Mrs Fenn did not hear two children crying - only one.  That  is called lying by omission.

Are you claiming the above are truthful factual descriptions taken from the files?

I could go on - but have to go out now.

[colombosstogey]

Not according to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa when the book ban was overturned In October 2010. The three judges stated that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to express his opinions on the case, which are based on the police files as well as his 20 plus years experience in the PJ. You seem to believe that people do not have the right to express any opinion which might upset the McCanns, even when based on facts. In Portugal, police files and court decisions are always made public so that people can discuss them and even disagree publicly if they believe that they are not correct.

It is funny really for me Montclair, as they need to worry more about what is in Newspapers then any book.

People believe EVERYTHING they  read in the newspapers.

The thing is with GA book, only people interested in the case will have bought the book. I read it and there was NOTHING in it I didnt already know from the police files.

All this stuff in newspapers reaches far more people.

Look at the rubbish with Nigella Lawson at the moment because of the media everyone now thinks she is a crack head....

Like I said I read the book it did nothing to sway me from what I already felt.

[Montclair]

It is funny really for me Montclair, as they need to worry more about what is in Newspapers then any book.

People believe EVERYTHING they  read in the newspapers.

The thing is with GA book, only people interested in the case will have bought the book. I read it and there was NOTHING in it I didnt already know from the police files.

All this stuff in newspapers reaches far more people.

Look at the rubbish with Nigella Lawson at the moment because of the media everyone now thinks she is a crack head....

Like I said I read the book it did nothing to sway me from what I already felt.

OT, but poor Nigella. That horrible Saatchi is the one behind it and running his own personal campaign against her.

[Montclair]

the court gave an interim ruling that he had a right to express his opinions...they did not rule whether those opinions are libellous

The acordão stated that the McCanns were not "damaged" by the book and that his opinion was based on the facts of the investigation, therefore not libellous.

[Redblossom]

I've already done that loads of times. 

For instance  -  he claims JT formally identified Murat.    That is a lie - and there is nothing in the files to support his claim.

You cant assert that is a lie, you werent there....just because its not in the files doesnt mean it didnt happen.....and we have tanners clear as mud  rogatory which suggests she did! But lets not go over all that again, just now......if you say its a lie you have to prove its a lie and you cant.....

[Redblossom]

I take it very little took place at the court yesterday.

It was a full day so Im sure something took place....you will have to wait for the reports like everyone else....

[Luz]

the court gave an interim ruling that he had a right to express his opinions...they did not rule whether those opinions are libellous

Freedom of expression excludes defamation...Duhhhh

[Mr Gray]

Freedom of expression excludes defamation...Duhhhh

No it doesn't..you are 100% wrong as usual

[Rogerandout]

Freedom of expression excludes defamation...Duhhhh

Oh no it doesn't.