The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Estuarine]

Well we can postulate and pontificate as much as we like but when push comes to shove the only opinion which will count is that of Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. As she repeatedly told witnesses in the trial to date.

[Wonderfulspam]

An?

Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation is outright fraudulent.

Amaral says Eddie had "no hesitation" in picking out the Renault.  Untrue.

Amaral says Eddie detected cadaver scent all over the place.  The statements of both Grime and Harrison refute that.

Harrison plagiarised the proper detective work of Harrison to reach a "finding" that Gerry hid Madeleine's body on the beach

....

Can anyone explain why these 'lies' haven't been outlined by the McCanns witnesses during the current trial ?

[ferryman]

Well we can postulate and pontificate as much as we like but when push comes to shove the only opinion which will count is that of Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. As she repeatedly told witnesses in the trial to date.

Assuming there are no appeals ...

[ferryman]

Can anyone explain why these 'lies' haven't been outlined by the McCanns witnesses during the current trial ?

I think what has been made public of the trial is the tip of the ice berg.

The majority of the case consists of written submissions, I reckon.

[ferryman]

So, when they have been demonstrated to the judge's satisfaction, it will be declared libel. Until then it isn't.

That which is demonstrably false and lowers reputation is libel.

Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation is demonstrably false.  We know that because we have Harrison's report.

And if Isabel Duarte has Prior's report, she may, well, be able to show the claim that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest after being contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results is, also, demonstrably false (and therefore also libel, of both the McCanns and Stuart Prior).

Amaral's claim that the FSS bottled out of finding that Madeleine had been taken somewhere dead in the car libels both the FSS and the McCanns.

I daresay he will get away with his libel against the FSS, though ...

[Estuarine]

Assuming there are no appeals ...

Well it might end up like Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
Just as an aside there was a fraud case in India, that went on seemingly forever, which was finally thrown out when the last living witness died.

[AnneGuedes]

Well it might end up like Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
Just as an aside there was a fraud case in India, that went on seemingly forever, which was finally thrown out when the last living witness died.

[Carana]

I think what has been made public of the trial is the tip of the ice berg.

The majority of the case consists of written submissions, I reckon.

I would certainly hope so.

[Estuarine]

Can anyone explain why these 'lies' haven't been outlined by the McCanns witnesses during the current trial ?

Basically because they are outside the terms of writ. 

[AnneGuedes]

Basically because they are outside the terms of writ. 

A Professor MBE as a witness of the supposed lies, that would have been good stuff for the accusation...

[Carana]

My understanding is that Portugal libel law is similar to the US. In the US in most states if the defamation relates to a criminal act it becomes "libel per se " and the onus of proof moves to the defendant. This may be what happened in the Murat case and therefore may be true for the McCann case

I don't recall having come across that in what I've read of PT law, but they do keep changing.

The key point that shifted the onus in the Murat case seems to have been that what may interest the public is not necessarily in the public interest.

The editor of a media outlet is responsible for what is published, which created a legal presumption.


VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.
VIII - Esta presunção legal isenta o autor-lesado do ónus da prova do facto, ou seja, o conhecimento, a aceitação e a imputação da publicação, por parte do diretor, a que a presunção conduz.

ww.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument

[Eleanor]

The Judge will have The Book, The Video, The Interviews and The Files, plus researchers to cross check.  No need to present this stuff in Court.  Apart from the quantity it is is all fairly straightforward.

[Estuarine]

Brief note

By Nigel Moore
23 February 2014

In the article below, The mediatisation of Madeleine McCann, Brian McNair states that the libel trial is due to conclude this Tuesday, 25 February 2014. Given there has been no public announcement of this, I presume Mr McNair has taken this information from the rumours which were circulating on social media last week.

The information I have is that there will be no hearing on Tuesday and that a date for closing arguments has yet to be set.

Oh well we have a difference of opinion!

SORRY ADMIN basic incompetence on my part it's in the wrong thread

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think what has been made public of the trial is the tip of the ice berg.

The majority of the case consists of written submissions, I reckon.

This is my understanding also, ferryman.

[Estuarine]

This is my understanding also, ferryman.

From Anne's reports on the trial the judge made it quite clear it was her job to compare the book with the PJ reports. She would not have been able do that in court!. I seem to remember that the thrust of the writ was that the book defamed the McCanns, had caused them and their surviving children harm and the book had impeded the search for Madeleine McCann. All of this is being judged under Portuguese law. It remains to be seen how the new UK Law on defamation will affect reporting there with the new defence of "honest opinion".