The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[jassi]

That statement doesn't make sense.  Amaral has made accusations against The McCanns that he cannot prove.  And he wasn't going to stop simply because The McCanns asked him to.  So of course it had to go to Court.  The question is only,
"Does anyone in Portugal have the right to print and record Libel?"
I don't know the answer to that.  But if it decided that he does then I shudder to think what will be printed about Amaral in Portugal.  Believe me, there are many people only too ready to print "Libellous Opinions" about him.  Many of which have far more credibility than anything he has had to say about The McCanns.

The McCanns consider that he has committed libel and have taken him to court.
If the judge finds in his favour, he will not be guilty of libel.
If the judge finds in favour of the McCanns, then Amaral will be guilty of libel.
Therefore, at present, it is only an opinion that libel has been committed.

[Mr Gray]

Did he not state that the official police evidence pointed to this scenario?

He called his book the "truth"...not a hypothesis

the official police evidence pointed to several scenarios...the police statements are protected by privilege

in his book amaral accuses the mccanns of staging an abduction and covering it up...that's libel by uk standards but we don't know the law in portugal

[Mr Gray]

He didn't discard it Eleanor, he archived it pending receipt of further evidence

In the AG report it criticises the validity of the police  evidence

[Eleanor]

He didn't discard it Eleanor, he archived it pending receipt of further evidence

So why was no one charged if this evidence was of any value?  And why is Portugal now pursuing Abduction?

And please don't tell me that there was insufficient evidence.  That much is obvious.

[Mr Gray]

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media - before the police - was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.


This is taken from the archiving report

[ferryman]

The McCanns consider that he has committed libel and have taken him to court.
If the judge finds in his favour, he will not be guilty of libel.
If the judge finds in favour of the McCanns, then Amaral will be guilty of libel.
Therefore, at present, it is only an opinion that libel has been committed.

The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.

Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.

That is libel ...

[ferryman]

in his book and in interviews amaral has said that Maddie died in the apt and the McCanns covered up her death and staged an abduction...that...by uk defn is libel...hope in as much as the mccannns are awarded damages and amaral is found guilty of libel

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

We can't judge Amaral's claim that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest, beause we don't see Prior's report.  But I bet the McCanns and Isabel Duarte have it ...

And if Kate ever sacked a UK liaison officer, that isn't recorded in anything we see on-line ...

[Admin]

The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.

Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.

That is libel ...

Can you give  us an example?

[jassi]

The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.

Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.

That is libel ...

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

[Eleanor]

The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.

Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.

That is libel ...

And it is Libel anywhere in the World.  Portugal can't change that to suit Amaral.  Although there is always a possibility that Portugal might try.
If they do then Amaral's very seedy past and total lack of morals will be aired all over the place, including in Portugal where he will have no redress at all.

[Carana]

its actually a little more than that. He has accused them of a criminal act..as I understand in most US states this would also be deemed libellous.It depends on Portuguese libel law which none of us really understand but the fact that Murat won his case against CDM gives me hope

My understanding of Murat's case is that it was somewhat different though.

In his case, although the burden of proof is normally on the complainant in a civil case in Portugal, the burden of proof shifted back to the publisher / editor of the newspaper as the duties set out in media law came into play. I'm not entirely sure where the burden of proof will be in the McCann case.

[ferryman]

Can you give  us an example?

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

....

[ferryman]

My understanding of Murat's case is that it was somewhat different though.

In his case, although the burden of proof is normally on the complainant in a civil case in Portugal, the burden of proof shifted back to the publisher / editor of the newspaper as the duties set out in media law came into play. I'm not entirely sure where the burden of proof will be in the McCann case.

Where ever the burden of proof lies in the Amaral libel trial, plenty that lowers reputation can be demonstrated and proven untrue ...

[ferryman]

I have used this example before.

Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role:

The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.


(Edit to follow) ....

And the penultimate sentence and paragraph of Harrison's third and final report:

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”)

Spot the discrepancy ...

[Mr Gray]

My understanding of Murat's case is that it was somewhat different though.

In his case, although the burden of proof is normally on the complainant in a civil case in Portugal, the burden of proof shifted back to the publisher / editor of the newspaper as the duties set out in media law came into play. I'm not entirely sure where the burden of proof will be in the McCann case.

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