The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Angelo222]

The McCanns could both have testified at any time in pursuance of their case but chose not to as Oliveira would have torn them to shreds during cross examination.  All those awkward questions which they have conveniently avoided so far.   A 'no comment' response in a court of law would immediately attract a contempt of court charge.  When they saw the case going pear shaped they decided they wanted to make a statement but the judge isn't having any of it.  Good call juiza Maria de Melo e Castro.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns could both have testified at any time in pursuance of their case but chose not to as Oliveira would have torn them to shreds during cross examination.  All those awkward questions which they have conveniently avoided so far.   A 'no comment' response in a court of law would immediately attract a contempt of court charge.  When they saw the case going pear shaped they decided they wanted to make a statement but the judge isn't having any of it.  Good call juiza Maria de Melo e Castro.

 from what I have read you are totally wrong angelo. it is only a recent change in the law that has allowed the McCanns the opportunity to testify. prior to this they were unable to do so...thats why the application has been made now.

[Mr Gray]

That is correct ferryman, in Portugal the onus is on the complainant to prove that the defender libelled them.  From everything I have read about the libel case I don't believe they have succeeded.  Amaral claimed in his book that they disposed of Madeline's body following some sort of accident and that they invented an abduction scenario to cover this up.  I cannot see how they could ever prove that he was wrong while Madeleine remains missing.

I believe they have been badly advised but that in itself is nothing new.


In Portugal as in the UK defamation is broadly defined as a statement that gives a false, damaging impression of someone to others. In verbal form it is called slander; in written form it is libel.

In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.

There are few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence, libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for any malicious litigant.

Unlike in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision rests at 1st instance with one judge.

In Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention has substituted the word “reputation” for the term “honour.”

 Where are you gettings your facts from re the MCcanns have to prove there case..is it just what you have read on forums? From what I have read even in the usa the McCanns would not have to prove anything because the accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity

[stephen25000]

Where are you gettings your facts from re the MCcanns have to prove there case..is it just what you have read on forums? From what I have read even in the usa the McCanns would not have to prove anything because the accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity

'accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity'

What are you on about ?

[Mr Gray]

'accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity'

What are you on about ?

 you don't know? posters have said that Portuguese libel law is similar to usa libel law ...

American libel law and libel per se...

Defamation per se[edit]

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[7]
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[8][9

[stephen25000]

you don't know? posters have said that Portuguese libel law is similar to usa libel law ...

American libel law and libel per se...

Defamation per se[edit]

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[7]
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[8][9

Do you have any conception of how difficult it is to prove libel in Portugal, as Amaral himself found out ?

[Mr Gray]

posters seem to think amaral doesn't have to prove anything....then why has he called all his witnesses trying to do just that...he could have   sat back and done nothing...from what I can see amaral is in truouble

[Mr Gray]

Do you have any conception of how difficult it is to prove libel in Portugal, as Amaral himself found out ?

 Perhaps because what was said about him was true...you do realise murat won his libel case

[stephen25000]

Perhaps because what was said about him was true...you do realise murat won his libel case

Was his libel case in Portugal ?

[Mr Gray]

Was his libel case in Portugal ?

Don't you know?

[stephen25000]

Don't you know?

 

[Mr Gray]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1534.0

 You need to get your facts right before contradicting posters who have a lot more knowledge than you

[jassi]

Murat didn't actually win in a UK court - the newspapers apologised and agreed on a settlement before any judgement was made.

[Mr Gray]

Murat didn't actually win in a UK court - the newspapers apologised and agreed on a settlement before any judgement was made.

oh dera another one...he won in a PORTUGUESE court

[stephen25000]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1534.0

 You need to get your facts right before contradicting posters who have a lot more knowledge than you

In your dreams.

Do you enjoy trying to insult other posters ?

It's getting a trite boring and reveals your basic personality traits. >@@(*&)