The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[jassi]

He's the easiest target as the others are rather more faceless organisations.

[Wonderfulspam]

Am I missing something here? 'twas my understanding there are 4 defendants in this case although Amaral would seem to be presented as the bogey man in chief.

Your new here so I will explain, everything is Amarals fault.

[jassi]

Your new here so I will explain, everything is Amarals fault.

Yes, even down to the poor weather that fateful week.

[Eleanor]

Am I missing something here? 'twas my understanding there are 4 defendants in this case although Amaral would seem to be presented as the bogey man in chief.

Amaral kicked it all off.  He made the accusations and the rest of them ran with it.

[carlymichelle]

Yes, even down to the poor weather that fateful week.

yep he  even made gerry and kate and the tapas   go to the tapas bar and abandon their kids powerful man isnt he!!!

[Wonderfulspam]

Amaral kicked it all off.  He made the accusations and the rest of them ran with it.

Yes & it was Amaral & Cristovao who snatched Maddie.

[Eleanor]

Yes & it was Amaral & Cristovao who snatched Maddie.

Come on.  I never said that.

[Estuarine]

I think you all missed the point !

[Cariad]

I think you are wrong about the prejuduices...its simple understanding of the evidence...did the mccanna lie in their statements..I say no...did they lie about the shutters ...I say no....did the dogs prove a cadaver had been present..I say no...has their behavior since shown them to be guilty...no

then theres the fact theyve never been arrested and the ag report said there was no evidence they had committed any crime...

i was right about the ST article, when most on here accepted it ...and Im right about the Mccanns

Yes, I have been absent so missed most of the Times debate, but I'm happy to concede that your predicted outcome was correct on that one. I believed a denial would imminently follow the article, should there be one, you said 'wait and see'.

We'll see soon enough (I hope) who's right on this one. 

[Eleanor]

I think you all missed the point !

Not really.  We all have different points.  But the other Defendants will win or lose along with Amaral.  The only difference is that they can better afford to lose.

But when push comes to shove it was the accusations of Amaral that motivated the whole their money making exercise.

[Carana]

This is the critical part of this document...in us law it is called libel per se and includes accusations of a criminal nature,which reverses the burden of proof...if portuguese law is the same then it is ammaral who has to prove...the truth is none of us know

It seems hugely complex (I'm not a lawyer).

My understanding is that normally, in Portuguese civil and commercial litigation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.

Upon appeal, whether the original ruling was upheld or overturned, the burden of proof in the Murat case was shifted to the media. As I understand the ruling, the media have both rights and duties. In his case, the (unfulfilled) duties of the media prevailed in terms of ruling in his favour. *

There are similarities, but also differences, between the two cases.


* Edited for clarification as it wasn't clear.

[slartibartfast]

Not really.  We all have different points.  But the other Defendants will win or lose along with Amaral.  The only difference is that they can better afford to lose.

But when push comes to shove it was the accusations of Amaral that motivated the whole their money making exercise.

In some respect in the UK at least he would be in a stronger position than the others as it was his Opinion.

[jassi]

Not really.  We all have different points.  But the other Defendants will win or lose along with Amaral.  The only difference is that they can better afford to lose.

But when push comes to shove it was the accusations of Amaral that motivated the whole their money making exercise.

They are film-makers and publishers - of course they are out to make money. Do you think Corner's film making company didn't make money out of the work they did?

[Mr Gray]

It seems hugely complex (I'm not a lawyer).

My understanding is that normally, in Portuguese civil and commercial litigation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.

Upon appeal, whether the original ruling was upheld or overturned, the burden of proof in the Murat case was shifted to the media. As I understand the ruling, the media have both rights and duties. In his case, the (unfulfilled) duties of the media prevailed.

There are similarities, but also differences, between the two cases.

Its probably quite simple but we dont know in what situations the burden of proof is changed...that would perhaps give us the answer

[Estuarine]

In some respect in the UK at least he would be in a stronger position than the others as it was his Opinion.