The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Mr Gray]

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".

Depends how much value you put on Anne's report....part of the writ is defamation so  we will see what the judge thinks when she makes her decision...whenever that may be...It seems no one really understands Portuguese libel law..including the Portuguese posters

[AnneGuedes]

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".

The legitimacy of GA's opinion as expressed in his book has already been judged and the book finally came back in the bookshops. What is judged now are the effects of that book, independently of its conformity to the conclusions of the PJ investigation in September, conclusions that Paulo Rebelo, who started his work reviewing GA Team's work, didn't dismiss.
When you say true things that potentially affect others, you need a serious motive and it has to be in the interest of the public's information, otherwise you risk to be condemned for malice.

[Mr Gray]

The legitimacy of GA's opinion as expressed in his book has already been judged and the book finally came back in the bookshops. What is judged now are the effects of that book, independently of its conformity to the conclusions of the PJ investigation in September, conclusions that Paulo Rebelo, who started his work reviewing GA Team's work, didn't dismiss.
When you say true things that potentially affect others, you need a serious motive and it has to be in the interest of the public's information, otherwise you risk to be condemned for malice.

What about when you say untrue things

[jassi]

What about when you say untrue things

That's where it becomes difficult - who really  knows what is true & what is false?

[Mr Gray]

That's where it becomes difficult - who really  knows what is true & what is false?

I agree but Anne has made a statement based on saying TRUE things...who has to show that those things are true or untrue...is what Anne is saying true

[AnneGuedes]

What about when you say untrue things

Then you're condemned without any hope.

[AnneGuedes]

What I meant is that it's not sufficient to say the truth (whether it is the truth or what you think is true), the motivation behind is crucial.

[Mr Gray]

Then you're condemned without any hope.

Thank you Anne...so if what amaral has said is untrue then he is condemned without any hope

[Mr Gray]

What I meant is that it's not sufficient to say the truth (whether it is the truth or what you think is true), the motivation behind is crucial.

That doesn't really make an awful lot of sense I'm afraid

[Benice]

That's where it becomes difficult - who really  knows what is true & what is false?

What is true - (unless there are some serious translation errors in his book)  - is that much in his book is NOT corroborated by the PJ files - as claimed.

Here is just one example:-

QUOTE from Amarals book:-

 It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE

Where is the corroboration for that accusation?   There is none, and the AGs report makes that quite clear.

QUOTE FROM AG
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless.
Unquote

[Mr Gray]

What is true - (unless there are some serious translation errors in his book)  - is that much in his book is NOT corroborated by the PJ files - as claimed.

Here is just one example:-

QUOTE from Amarals book:-

 It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE

Where is the corroboration for that accusation?   There is none, and the AGs report makes that quite clear.

QUOTE FROM AG
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless.
Unquote

So to go on repeating these things when they have been shown to be false is not even honest opinion

[Estuarine]

So to go on repeating these things when they have been shown to be false is not even honest opinion

Correct me if I am wrong but the libel case is about defamation of the McCanns, the harm it caused the McCanns and their surviving children and the content of Dr Amaral's book having had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine McCann. If so anything said about The McCanns friends will be hardly relevant. Dr Amaral is on trial for alleged defamation b****r all else.

[AnneGuedes]

What is true - (unless there are some serious translation errors in his book)  - is that much in his book is NOT corroborated by the PJ files - as claimed.

Here is just one example:-

QUOTE from Amarals book:-

 It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE

Where is the corroboration for that accusation?   There is none, and the AGs report makes that quite clear.

QUOTE FROM AG
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless.
Unquote

Stricto senso, Mrs Oldfield contacted a BBC journalist friend in the middle of the night.

[Mr Gray]

Correct me if I am wrong but the libel case is about defamation of the McCanns, the harm it caused the McCanns and their surviving children and the content of Dr Amaral's book having had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine McCann. If so anything said about The McCanns friends will be hardly relevant. Dr Amaral is on trial for alleged defamation b****r all else.

I think you will find amaral said a lot more than that

[Mr Gray]

Stricto senso, Mrs Oldfield contacted a BBC journalist friend in the middle of the night.

The police had already been called