The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Angelo222]

Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.

[Rogerandout]

Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.

We shall know more in the new year. Meanwhile we may speculate and may be right or wrong.

I just pick up a whiff here of protecting the myth. If the court finds against Amaral, then people will claim it was not libel but only compensation.

[icabodcrane]

We shall know more in the new year. Meanwhile we may speculate and may be right or wrong.

I just pick up a whiff here of protecting the myth. If the court finds against Amaral, then people will claim it was not libel but only compensation.

The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has  'libelled'  the McCanns

There has been no accusation,  that I have seen,  that what he wrote is  'untrue'  ....   what has been contested is that what he wrote was  'damaging' 

[AnneGuedes]

Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.

Neither do I. I don't see why somebody would confess, therefore doubt will remain about what happened to the little girl. I've a feeling, though, that with time and knowledge the highly implausible from bed claim will perish.

[Rogerandout]

The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has  'libelled'  the McCanns

There has been no accusation,  that I have seen,  that what he wrote is  'untrue'  ....   what has been contested is that what he wrote was  'damaging'

Damage to reputation is defamation. Defamation can be libel.

I can see the start of an excuse for failure being initiated here.

[ferryman]

The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has  'libelled'  the McCanns

There has been no accusation,  that I have seen,  that what he wrote is  'untrue'  ....   what has been contested is that what he wrote was  'damaging'

How can a libel trial do anything other than address the issue of whether the McCanns have been libelled?

[AnneGuedes]

The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has  'libelled'  the McCanns

There has been no accusation,  that I have seen,  that what he wrote is  'untrue'  ....   what has been contested is that what he wrote was  'damaging'

Yes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.

[ferryman]

Neither do I. I don't see why somebody would confess, therefore doubt will remain about what happened to the little girl. I've a feeling, though, that with time and knowledge the highly implausible from bed claim will perish.

therefore doubt will remain about what happened to the little girl.

But there will be no doubt that the McCanns and their friends were innocent of any part in her disappearance.

Amaral's intention might have been malicious, avaricious or both.

It certainly wasn't honourable

[Benice]

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.....

It's Amarals assertions that are being questioned not mine.  It is HIS claim in his book that JT formally identified Murat as the man she saw carrying away a child - not my claim.         So where is her 'formal' witness statement?   Why is this positive identification not listed in the AGs report as one of the major reasons why Murat was made an Arguido?    Who else apart from Amaral has made that claim about JT?   

And what policeman worth his salt  - on receipt of such a massively important  piece of evidence from an eye witness would then tell his officers they didn't need to bring her in to make statement to confirm it - and that she could go  home?!   That makes no sense whatsoever.

It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense why she was not taken back to the police station to give a signed statement - and that's because she had not identified Murat as the man she saw carrying a child -  and a statement confirming that fact was no use to Amaral.

   





   









   

[Rogerandout]

Yes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.

Why would damage need to be shown as malicious?

[icabodcrane]

Damage to reputation is defamation. Defamation can be libel.

I can see the start of an excuse for failure being initiated here.

I will accept whatever  ruling the Judge gives

At this point, though,  I am confused about  what, exactly,  she will be ruling on

Is she judging whether or not Amaral made false allegations against the McCanns,  and therby damaged them   ?  ...  or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by Amaral's allegations  regardless  of them being false or not  ?

[AnneGuedes]

   So where is her 'formal' witness statement?   Why is this positive identification not listed in the AGs report as one of the major reasons why Murat was made an Arguido?    Who else apart from Amaral has made that claim about JT?   

It might be in the LC files. After all it was an idea of the British, wasn't it ?
There's evidence in the files that some files aren't there and I'm not thinking of the paedo-files.
Watching the documentary, actually hearing it because the public could only see the back of the screen, I noticed that GA speaks of that episode. I don't think he would do that if there was nothing to support it.

[ferryman]

I will accept whatever  ruling the Judge gives

At this point, though,  I am confused about  what, exactly,  she will be ruling on

Is she judging whether or not Amaral made false allegations against the McCanns,  and therby damaged them   ?  ...  or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by Amaral's allegations  regardless  of them being false or not  ?

In Portuguese law, as in English, truth is an absolute defence.

In English law, implicit untruth can be libel as well as explicit.

I don't know about Portuguese law.

But this statement of Amaral's from his book is actually contradicted by what Amaral himself says before in the same section, and is certainly not true, as we know having seen the video ourselves:

Eddie did not hesitate for a moment. He was only interested in the McCanns' automobile. No other attracted his attention

Goncalo Amaral,

[Carana]

Yes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.

Would malice need to be proven in a civil case?

Even if so, how would the general Portuguese public, who have not read the files, view an ex-coordinator's opinion, repeated and supported by various friends, colleagues, etc., on daytime TV and elsewhere, as to his assertion that the child died in the apartment and that the parents were fully aware of this?

a) That his opinion is quite likely to be correct in view of his experience?

Or...

b) That he might not be?

[Luz]

Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.

For the McCann, obtaining money seems to be all that counts.
So far they haven't been moved by anything else, not even to go to the places where sightings were signaled - in fact they always traveled away from it.

Money is the only stimuli that makes them move.