The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Mr Moderator]

For information, fully edited and checked reports are now available in the libel trial reports library.  Members can now make up their own mind (in as far as this is possible) as to who said what and when.

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=68.0


G McCann report concludes...

GMC  Can I make a statement?
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.


Session ends

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.msg172168#new

[faithlilly]

What do those peeps here, who claim that Eddie was alerting to blood from irrelevant peeps' shaving cuts etc, make of this apparent insistence that he was not alerting to blood at all ?

You make a good point Pegasus. Gerry in his arguido interview said that Madeleine had nosebleeds and he couldn't be sure that she hadn't had one on holiday ( or words to that effect ) so how he can now ci aim that it definitely wasn't bold heaven alone knows.

Of course we all know he really meant cadaver but couldn't bring himself to say it !

[faithlilly]

The parents had to prove that they suffered offence and damages from the book but, it is obvious, that they failed. They were unable to prove that they suffered from depression, insomnia, etc. No medical proof whatsoever. There were three other books written about the case in Portugal and these books didn't bother the McCanns? Maybe the difference is that the other books didn't make as much money. The judge did ask Gerry McCann if he knew about the other books, so she must have done her homework.

I think one of the most pertinent questions of the whole trial, which hasn't I believe been asked yet, is if the book did have the psychological impact the McCanns claim why was there no evidence from any psychologist or indeed their own doctor to prove this ?

[Carana]

I think one of the most pertinent questions of the whole trial, which hasn't I believe been asked yet, is if the book did have the psychological impact the McCanns claim why was there no evidence from any psychologist or indeed their own doctor to prove this ?

Have the claims changed from those stated in the injunction trial?

[Eleanor]

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.

[sadie]

I think one of the most pertinent questions of the whole trial, which hasn't I believe been asked yet, is if the book did have the psychological impact the McCanns claim why was there no evidence from any psychologist or indeed their own doctor to prove this ?

You only have to look at poor Kates face to know that she has been dreadfully damaged.

I am surprised that you cant see that?

[Carana]

A point that I happen to agree with Montclair about is that it doesn't appear to be a libel trial in a UK sense. From what I can gather, whether what the defendants have stated/published/broadcast/distributed is true or not is irrelevant. The issue seems to be whether whatever has been stated has damaged the family's rights or not.

[faithlilly]

You only have to look at poor Kates face to know that she has been dreadfully damaged.

I am surprised that you cant see that?

I'm sure she is dreadfully damaged sadie. The death of a child, especially a death that you would have been able to stop had you been there, must weigh heavy on even the hardest heart.

[Carana]

I'm sure she is dreadfully damaged sadie. The death of a child, especially a death that you would have been able to stop had you been there, must weigh heavy on even the hardest heart.

Would you like some more salt to rub into their wounds?

If they had been there at the time, I'd agree that it would have been less likely that she could have been taken. However, several other children of holidaying families were assaulted and/or had some nutjob sitting on their beds when their parents were there.

And there is still no evidence that she's dead.

[Mr Moderator]

A point that I happen to agree with Montclair about is that it doesn't appear to be a libel trial in a UK sense. From what I can gather, whether what the defendants have stated/published/broadcast/distributed is true or not is irrelevant. The issue seems to be whether whatever has been stated has damaged the family's rights or not.

When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
 
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.

Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?

[Carana]

When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
 
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.

Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?

Thanks for that Mr M. Whose court report is that?

If the issues had been sorted out as a result of the injunction trial (as opposed to a preliminary issue to stop further alleged damage), what would be the point of continuing?

[Eleanor]

When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
 
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.

Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?

Wow, thanks for that.  So simple.

"Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation."

Obviously The Book Injunction Trial only addressed the right of Goncalo Amaral.

[Benice]

I'm sure she is dreadfully damaged sadie. The death of a child, especially a death that you would have been able to stop had you been there, must weigh heavy on even the hardest heart.

Indeed Faith - as April Jones' mother has confirmed.  i.e.  It will always weigh heavily on her that she 'enabled' a situation where her little girl was abducted and murdered.    She has nothing to reproach herself for IMO- but I can understand that going down the.... 'If only....' road is something which will always be with her.

Ben Needham's grandparents probably suffer in the same way.

However in Ben's case - as with Madeleine - there is no evidence that either children are dead - which IMO makes the pain their families suffer even worse - as they are permanently in limbo and do not have closure.

For anyone to want to add to their agony is despicable IMO.

[Mr Moderator]

Wow, thanks for that.  So simple.

"Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation."

Obviously The Book Injunction Trial only addressed the right of Goncalo Amaral.

It raises an important point as to whether Mr Amaral's rights have been infringed by the McCanns when they make the claims they do against him?  The longer this goes on the more bizarre it becomes imo.

[ferryman]

It raises an important point as to whether Mr Amaral's rights have been infringed by the McCanns when they make the claims they do against him?  The longer this goes on the more bizarre it becomes imo.

"Rights" to defame, traduce and malign?

Neither Portuguese law nor the Portuguese constitution uphold those rights.