The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Eleanor]

"The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record"

Where is it recorded  ? 

It it has not been established in court that Amaral lied  ...  indeed,  the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all in that regard

In his Book, on Television and in Interviews he said things that he cannot prove.  He also stated some things that are proven to be incorrect.

[Eleanor]

I must be getting confused here?

Amral's book has already been allowed in Portugal as the McCann's challenge to it failed.

This trial is trying determine if the book adversely affected the search for Madeleine?

The injunction on the book was lifted because it had not at that time been legally deemed Libellous.

[Victoria]

I must be getting confused here?

Amral's book has already been allowed in Portugal as the McCann's challenge to it failed.

This trial is trying determine if the book adversely affected the search for Madeleine?

The trial isn't about determining whether or not the search was hindered. It's about determining the damage caused to the McCanns

[jassi]

There seems to be a lot of confusion on here about the trial. Hopefully the judge knows what's going on 

[Eleanor]

I think there is more than one issue involved in this Trial.

[icabodcrane]

In his Book, on Television and in Interviews he said things that he cannot prove.  He also stated some things that are proven to be incorrect.

"proven to be incorrect"  where  ?

Certainly not in court ....   which is the only place that matters to the Judge

[icabodcrane]

The trial isn't about determining whether or not the search was hindered. It's about determining the damage caused to the McCanns

That is not correct Victoria

One of the claims  on which the McCanns' case hinges is that Amaral's book  damaged  'the search'  for Madeleine

[Eleanor]

"proven to be incorrect"  where  ?

Certainly not in court ....   which is the only place that matters to the Judge

In his book, on television and in newspapers.  These things have been studied in Court.

[Wonderfulspam]

"The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record"

Where is it recorded  ? 

It it has not been established in court that Amaral lied  ...  indeed,  the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all in that regard

Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

'Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.'

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

[icabodcrane]

In his book, on television and in newspapers.  These things have been studied in Court.

What do you mean,  "These things have been studied in court" ?

That claim is entirely unevidenced and pure speculation 

[Victoria]

That is not correct Victoria

One of the claims  on which the McCanns' case hinges is that Amaral's book  damaged  'the search'  for Madeleine

I'd like to see you provide proof that the case 'hinges' on the search being hindered by the book. This may have been a point that was raised, but the case does not hinge upon it. What cause of action would that be, exactly?

[Eleanor]

What do you mean,  "These things have been studied in court" ?

That claim is entirely unevidenced and pure speculation

The book, the video and the articles are central to the case.  Of course they have been studied.  That is what this is all about.

[Mr Gray]

I'd like to see you provide proof that the case 'hinges' on the search being hindered by the book. This may have been a point that was raised, but the case does not hinge upon it. What cause of action would that be, exactly?

 The trial is about defamation as well as the search being hindered. Amaral called his book"The truth about the lie". I think the defamation starts there

[ferryman]

But none of this was brought up by the McCanns' lawyer during the trial

In fact,  as far as I can see,  the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all that  Amaral  had  'lied' 

The entire prosecution rested on the claim that Amaral's book had damaged the McCanns and damaged  'the search'  for Madeleine

You don't seriously think that is what is in the public domain consists of what the whole of the case rests on?

Do you?

[stephen25000]

You don't seriously think that is what is in the public domain consists of what the whole of the case rests on?

Do you?

So ferryman, other than a stroll on the beach the following morning, what physical searches did the Mccanns do for their daughter ?

As to supposedly 'hindering' a search, it may have escaped your mind but people do have the right to believe or disbelieve the Mccanns stories.

P.S. When have you searched for Madeleine ?

Typing on a keyboard is not included.