The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[faithlilly]

Haven't been able to watch Gerry's piece to camera outside the courts. Did he mention that Kate had also tried to give evidence at a previous hearing ?

[gilet]

There is absolutely nothing the McCanns can do about the fact that the twins will have access to everything in this digital age. Suing Amaral is not going to make a whit of difference to anything the twins end up knowing or not knowing. There is no 'before' and 'after' on the internet - what's done is done.

Who knows, maybe Madeleine herself, if she is alive, will use the internet to find out who she is, and that will lead to her eventual discovery. Unlikely, but possible. Would be a very happy irony amidst all the claims and counter claims on freedom of information and expression.

Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.

However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?

It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.

[sadie]

Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.

However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?

It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.

Well analysed gilet

[gilet]

yeah shielding their eyes when they pop into newsagents for sweets from the tabloids!!! Your mum was suicidial, some  people plotted to kidnap you, things the mccanns were happy to go out in the media

....

I find your stance on this matter rather odd.

Were the McCanns not to have challenged Amaral's thesis and lies then the parents would have been said to be allowing his claims to stand and that they must be true. And that would in fact have left the twins open to the accusation that the parents had not even bothered to challenge the man.

Their only real option was to challenge him in court. By doing so they are showing that they are in fact defending the family against his claims, that they are not prepared to accept the lies against them or their children which Amaral has published.

Should they win, then the twins will have the determination of a court with which to explain to others, when challenged, that Amaral's actions were wrong and untruthful.

Should they lose, then they will be able to explain that their parents did not simply accept the lies and unconfirmed theses of the ex-cop who was thrown of the case to find their child and who then decided (according to himself and his main sideperson, Morais) to reclaim his "honour" by publishing for profit about their sister, his lies and theses.

Not an easy decision to make as to whether to challenge this disgraced ex-cop. No certainty of winning. But the brave and honest choice was made.

Your rather desperate harping on about the "revelation" of the kidnap threat is quite baffling too. Do you not understand that this has been revealed as a past event which has been dealt with by sensible reporting to the police? It is a clear demonstration to the twins that their parents and wider family are monitoring the nutters and lunatics who might be out there to cause them harm and that recourse to the police can and will be made if necessary. I see that a s positive thing actually.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.

However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?

It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.

A very good point, gilet. I have to agree. Proving Amaral's 'lies' would help the McCanns and the twins enormously.

[gilet]

I have every sympathy with anyone who has not been able to attend a court hearing, whether it be a judge, witness or a member of a lawyer's family due to unforeseen urgent matters. I do hope that whatever the circumstances were has not proved to be too serious.

What I find a bit odd, in this case, is just how many times this case seems to have been postponed due to such matters.

I am not being cynical at all when I share your concern that this case has been beset by so many delays, each more urgent, it seems, than the next. Amaral not being able to be found was one I recall. Didn't the judge end up finding that his only known address (to the court) was a police station? Didn't his previous lawyers staff have some illness and cause delays? And now, literally at no notice the lawyer's son has emergency surgery. Three such odd delays caused do seem most odd, though each in itself is almost certainly founded in truth.

[C.Edwards]

Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.

However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?

It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.

I don't think this court hearing will establish what you refer to, but I've been surprised by the Portuguese legal system before...  Also the court that overturned his book ban clearly stated his book hadn't infringed their rights or something like that from memory?  Would be hard for this court to overrrule that one I think.

[gilet]

A very good point, gilet. I have to agree. Proving Amaral's 'lies' would help the McCanns and the twins enormously.

And, in my view, conversely standing aside and allowing him to continue the lies and unfounded claims would make life much more difficult for the twins in that it would open up the possibility that they would have to defend their parents' inaction.

Incidentally I have no qualms about using the word "lies" in relation to his book and video. He claims definitively that Madeleine is dead. That is simply a lie. There is no proof that she is dead. Had he made it clear that it was only a theory then I would have stuck to the phrase "unfounded theories/claims" but he makes death a fact on which to base his other claims. I believe that to be a lie.

[gilet]

I don't think this court hearing will establish what you refer to, but I've been surprised by the Portuguese legal system before...  Also the court that overturned his book ban clearly stated his book hadn't infringed their rights or something like that from memory?  Would be hard for this court to overrrule that one I think.

I am also uncertain as to what the court will establish, Portuguese law not being something I have studied. But I have no doubt Isabel Duarte has discussed these matters with her clients.

No matter what is established in reality though, the mere fact that the parents did go and challenge the lies and allegations of Amaral is important. To have chosen not to do so would have put the twins in a more difficult position whatever the outcome.

As for what this court can rule...

The question of human rights, it must be remembered, is not as simple as it initially seems. When dealing with Human Rights and Freedom of Speech then the question of the rights of one person against those of another have to be balanced.

Though Amaral may, as the previous court judged, have the right to publish, this court is taking the further step of now deciding whether the rights of the McCanns to their reputations outweigh the rights of Amaral to make widespread public accusations against them, and whether his publication of a thesis has damaged the search for a missing child.

The two courts are not in fact being asked to judge the same matters at all. It is not a matter of overuling a previous decision but taking it into account as one factor among many in a more complex balancing of rights and responsibilities. 

[Carana]

Let's try a hypothetical situation.

What if I accused you all over the press for years of munching on newborn puppies for breakfast?

You and your family might be understandably upset at this and take me to court.

But, whether you do munch on puppies or kittens or whether you just have a cup of coffee and cereal for breakfast doesn't seem to be relevant - it's my right to free speech.

You would have to prove that what I have said has damaged you and quantify it.

How easy is that?

[DCI]

Mr McCann was informed that the hearing had been adjourned because one of the lawyers’ grown up children was unwell

The former police officer’s lawyer, Vitor Santos de Oliveira, applied to halt the hearing on Thursday night, telling the court his son was in hospital.
He said: “My son is having an operation. I hope that because of this you won’t be making a hullabaloo saying that Gonçalo Amaral is holding things up.”
Isabel Duarte, the lawyer who is representing the McCann family said: “It’s not surreal, it’s Portugal.”
“I saw the request to adjourn this morning. The facts are that we have organised the trial and the lawyer was actually here, so I was expecting the trial today. I asked the judge to at least hear my witness.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10340640/Gerry-McCann-frustrated-after-libel-trial-is-suddenly-postponed.html

So WTF, wasn't everyone told, before the hearing today!

[faithlilly]

I am also uncertain as to what the court will establish, Portuguese law not being something I have studied. But I have no doubt Isabel Duarte has discussed these matters with her clients.

No matter what is established in reality though, the mere fact that the parents did go and challenge the lies and allegations of Amaral is important. To have chosen not to do so would have put the twins in a more difficult position whatever the outcome.

As for what this court can rule...

The question of human rights, it must be remembered, is not as simple as it initially seems. When dealing with Human Rights and Freedom of Speech then the question of the rights of one person against those of another have to be balanced.

Though Amaral may, as the previous court judged, have the right to publish, this court is taking the further step of now deciding whether the rights of the McCanns to their reputations outweigh the rights of Amaral to make widespread public accusations against them, and whether his publication of a thesis has damaged the search for a missing child.

The two courts are not in fact being asked to judge the same matters at all. It is not a matter of overuling a previous decision but taking it into account as one factor among many in a more complex balancing of rights and responsibilities.

Did the writ claim that the book 'has harmed the search'  ?

[Redblossom]

[ferryman]

Mr McCann was informed that the hearing had been adjourned because one of the lawyers’ grown up children was unwell

The former police officer’s lawyer, Vitor Santos de Oliveira, applied to halt the hearing on Thursday night, telling the court his son was in hospital.
He said: “My son is having an operation. I hope that because of this you won’t be making a hullabaloo saying that Gonçalo Amaral is holding things up.”
Isabel Duarte, the lawyer who is representing the McCann family said: “It’s not surreal, it’s Portugal.”
“I saw the request to adjourn this morning. The facts are that we have organised the trial and the lawyer was actually here, so I was expecting the trial today. I asked the judge to at least hear my witness.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10340640/Gerry-McCann-frustrated-after-libel-trial-is-suddenly-postponed.html

So WTF, wasn't everyone told, before the hearing today!

Quite.

That's the other perplexing point.

Suddenly I'm feeling a little less hopeful ...

[Jacinta]

I was just looking for this because the one on the ITV page freezes part way through. Thank you for sharing Redblossom   ?{)(**