Given the Appellate Courts decision, is the libel trial a foregone conclusion?

[Mr Gray]

No news on the new lawyer

[Victoria]

No news on the new lawyer

Probably hasn't got one and will be asking for more time.

[stephen25000]

Probably hasn't got one and will be asking for more time.

We shall see shortly.

[Mr Gray]

There is a bizarre story that says he has appointed one that doesn't use  a phone or email...it has to be a joke...doesn't it

[Carana]

The point I am making is that some have said that the burden of proof is on the mccanns to prove amaral wrong.
What I am seeing from the witnesses is that amaral is trying to prove his thesis is reasonable whilst the McCanns are calling witnesses to quantify their suffering....that makes me think the burden of proof is on amaral

Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).

So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.

All a bit confusing.

[Mr Gray]

Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).

So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.

All a bit confusing.

I think its fairly obvious amaral is really struggling

[stephen25000]

I think its fairly obvious amaral is really struggling

Why don't you wait for the judgement of the court ?

[Carana]

There is a bizarre story that says he has appointed one that doesn't use  a phone or email...it has to be a joke...doesn't it

Hmmm. I wonder if that's a bit of tabloid invention?

I still don't understand why he fired his last lawyer, just before the end of the trial...

[ferryman]

Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).

So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.

All a bit confusing.

 It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.

Probable or even likely in my opinion.

I reckon that what's been played out in court is the tip of the iceberg.

We must, always, remember that legal proceedings under the inquisitorial system are vastly different from those we are more used to under the adversarial.

[Montclair]

It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.

Probable or even likely in my opinion.

I reckon that what's been played out in court is the tip of the iceberg.

We must, always, remember that legal proceedings under the inquisitorial system are vastly different from those we are more used to under the adversarial.

Sorry, but what you reckon is wrong.

[ferryman]

Sorry, but what you reckon is wrong.

So why did Santos open proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive?

Any idea?

[Brietta]

Hate no,and no desire to meet them,

but I despise people who blame everyone else for their failures and call their behaviour 'exhibiting responsible parenting skills'.

It never was.

The blame game??  Dr Amaral has a long list of blame to explain his failures - international politics - British media - British police - the Diplomatic Service - MI5 - the NHS - Gordon Brown - Portuguese government - the Policia Judiciária - his superiors - his officers – his wife leaving him – his dog being killed - his 'minha dignidade' being shredded. 

Anyway, having resolved his most recent difficulties with lawyers I am sure he will be relieved that the trial is about to reach its conclusion after many difficulties and delays over the past five years … I take it this is the same libel trial that started five years ago?

[Eleanor]

In Britain words do not have to be prove true or false to be deemed Libel or Defamation.

I know that we aren't talking about Britain, but it seems that something similar applies in Portugal.

[ferryman]

If The McCanns are innocent, which I believe they are, then it doesn't require brain surgery to know that the book and the video will have had a devastating effect on The McCanns.

However, The Judge is apparently not interested in the guilt or innocence of either Goncalo Amaral or The McCanns, but only in whether or not the book and video would have caused distress to The McCanns.

This is a no brainer.  In My Opinion.

Suppose, hypothetically, that Amaral had accused the McCanns of boiling new-born babies alive in some sort of Satanic ritual.

If the allegation is true, then the McCanns are monsters and should be locked up.  Amaral would not have libelled them by making the claim.

But if the allegation is untrue then Amaral has libelled them and there should be a legal judgment against Amaral for libel.

In all countries (that have libel laws) questions of truth or untruth matter (to arrive at a judgment that libel, either has been committed, or has not).

To claim that truth or untruth doesn't matter is plain barking.

[Carana]

X,Y or Z may be able to prove damage, whether the allegations are true or not in a civil case, seemingly.

The difficulty seems to be in trying to prove and quantify damage.

It would be much more straightforward in some other types of civil cases, e.g, if someone's kid had thrown a football and broken a neighbour's glass greenhouse. The reparation would be to pay for the costs involved, i.e., restoring the situation to what it was prior to the event in cause.

However, how do you prove and quantify non-financial damage?