UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on September 22, 2013, 05:03:31 PM
-
It is somewhat enlightening editing the transcripts from the McCann v Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel trial in Lisbon. I cannot help from wondering however if the family make the right decision to allow it all to be publicised.
Given the emotional trauma which Kate has already experienced following the loss (however caused) of Madeleine and the subsequent investigation etc was she wise to attend Lisbon at this time?
Should they not have joined with Dr Amaral and opted for no Press reporting?
-
It is somewhat enlightening editing the transcripts from the McCann v Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel trial in Lisbon. I cannot help from wondering however if the family make the right decision to allow it all to be publicised.
Given the emotional trauma which Kate has already experienced following the loss (however caused) of Madeleine and the subsequent investigation etc was she wise to attend Lisbon at this time?
Should they not have joined with Dr Amaral and opted for no Press reporting?
I think they did the right thing, John. If only to shed light on the damage and hurt caused by foul sites like the 3As. That needed to be brought into the public domain, if only to make people think in future about the potential distress their nasty posts may cause.
I'll turn the question on its head. I wonder why Amaral wanted to exclude the press?
-
Is it clear that the McCanns had a say in the matter?
Or is it the case that open proceedings would be the usual protocol and Santos asked for special dispensation for proceedings in camera (lest Madeleine be alive)?
If the second, it would have been a decision of the judges to turn down the request for proceedings in camera.
-
Is it clear that the McCanns had a say in the matter?
Or is it the case that open proceedings would be the usual protocol and Santos asked for special dispensation for proceedings in camera (lest Madeleine be alive)?
If the second, it would have been a decision of the judges to turn down the request for proceedings in camera.
Oh yes, that's a thought ferryman. We don't know if they had a say. I think it would be interesting to explore just why Amaral wanted the press excluded. Would this need a separate thread, John?
Done
-
As plaintiffs the McCanns would have had the option whether to proceed with the Press present in Court or not. They also had the option to request that the tribunal continue as a 'Closed Court' which would have meant only the participants would have been allowed in.
-
As plaintiffs the McCanns would have had the option whether to proceed with the Press present in Court or not. They also had the option to request that the tribunal continue as a 'Closed Court' which would have meant only the participants would have been allowed in.
Are you sure about that?
-
Are you sure about that?
Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.
-
Wonder what would've have been said if it was the Mccanns who requested to disallow media reporting?
-
Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.
Do you actually have some training in Portuguese law or are you just waffling?
Please offer some proof of this claim.
-
Wonder what would've have been said if it was the Mccanns who requested to disallow media reporting?
The issue of freedom of speech and openness would have been raised loudly by the Amaral supporters. However when Amaral himself is trying to hide the proceedings from the public this does not raise their hackles. Appalling hypocrisy in my opinion.
-
Fact remains the Mccanns wanted the press publicity, says it all, from the horses mouth..they OPPOSED Amarals request for case to be heard in camera...
Of course they wanted the publicity. Why would they want the exposure of Amaral's libel and gross abuse of his position to be kept secret?
It was in Portugal where Amaral's lies did the damage so his defence (or lack of defence) of those lies should be openly seen in that country.
For Amaral and Morais (who have ranted about freedom of speech for so long) to have hypocritically chosen this moment to want to hide the facts from the public (on the grounds according to Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine may be alive) is pathetic in the extreme.
-
Of course they wanted the publicity. Why would they want the exposure of Amaral's libel and gross abuse of his position to be kept secret?
It was in Portugal where Amaral's lies did the damage so his defence (or lack of defence) of those lies should be openly seen in that country.
For Amaral and Morais (who have ranted about freedom of speech for so long) to have hypocritically chosen this moment to want to hide the facts from the public (on the grounds according to Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine may be alive) is pathetic in the extreme.
May I ask you to explain what editing of my post has been done by moderators?
-
Do you actually have some training in Portuguese law or are you just waffling?
Please offer some proof of this claim.
The Judge has been very clear on these side issues, if all parties concur she would agree to their requests. I wonder if Isabel took the position she did just to be awkward?
Nice to see you back, do try and get the quote box right next time eh?
-
Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.
I agree. The judge, when asked to request the documents referred to by Claudia Nogueira, said she didn't see much interest in them, but agreed because all parties agreed.
Apart from the accusation and defence's wishes, the Judge could have considered the audience's presence for some reason was counterproductive in this judgement and sent everybody home.
-
Fact remains the Mccanns wanted the press publicity, says it all, from the horses mouth..
One more time they revealed a total lack of imagination that could be the origin of what happened to Madeleine.
But perhaps they don't sell newspapers in Rothley.
-
One more time they revealed a total lack of imagination that could be the origin of what happened to Madeleine.
But perhaps they don't sell newspapers in Rothley.
No, there was no lack of imagination. There was a carefully balanced judgement whether the benefit of the lies of Amaral being exposed as such to the Portuguese public and the subsequent possible boost to any search effort against the detrimental effect of his lies being exposed in the UK press.
Should the case go in the McCann's favour as they, of course, hope and trust then there is no damage. The lies of the man are shown to be what they are. Should the McCanns lose then the thesis with no proof of death will continue to be peddled by Amaral for profit.
But the reality is that whichever way the trial in Lisbon goes the worst of the sad people who hound the family will continue to do so. Those people who post hideously grotesque images and post vile threats and lies will not stop just because Amaral has been found guilty. They are too entrenched in the hate to do that. The reality is that there are people who will forever deliberately target the McCann family and the twins no matter what happens. Those people will never care about the damage they personally do to the twins because their need to hate overrides such niceties.
-
Of course they wanted the publicity. Why would they want the exposure of Amaral's libel and gross abuse of his position to be kept secret?
It was in Portugal where Amaral's lies did the damage so his defence (or lack of defence) of those lies should be openly seen in that country.
For Amaral and Morais (who have ranted about freedom of speech for so long) to have hypocritically chosen this moment to want to hide the facts from the public (on the grounds according to Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine may be alive) is pathetic in the extreme.
And the effect of those lurid tabloid headlines on the twins ? What matters more to the McCanns, the public exposure of Amaral ( if that's what it is ) or their children's right to feel safe and secure ? It really is that simple.
-
Those people who post hideously grotesque images and post vile threats and lies will not stop just because Amaral has been found guilty. They are too entrenched in the hate to do that. The reality is that there are people who will forever deliberately target the McCann family and the twins no matter what happens. Those people will never care about the damage they personally do to the twins because their need to hate overrides such niceties.
There's no such person here, you're taking this forum for what it is not. I can't orientate you though, I never crossed these acquaintances of yours.
-
No, there was no lack of imagination. There was a carefully balanced judgement whether the benefit of the lies of Amaral being exposed as such to the Portuguese public and the subsequent possible boost to any search effort against the detrimental effect of his lies being exposed in the UK press.
I have been following the case as closely as others here ( with the added benefit of Anne's reports from court )
Have I missed something perhaps ? ... what 'lies' that Amaral told have been 'exposed' during this court case ?
-
I have been following the case as closely as others here ( with the added benefit of Anne's reports from court )
Have I missed something perhaps ? ... what 'lies' that Amaral told have been 'exposed' during this court case ?
I also fail to note exposure of any lies.. so far..
-
I also fail to note exposure of any lies.. so far..
The first five days of this trial have been totally devoted to the McCanns making their case ... how many witnesses have they produced ? ... 10 ?
I was under the impression that it was necessary for them to first establish that the book had 'libeled' them, and then proceed with establishing how much damage the libel had caused
As far as I can see though, the first five days ( and the McCann witnesses ) have 'only' presented the case for damage caused by the book, without establishing if it is libelous in any way
-
The first five days of this trial have been totally devoted to the McCanns making their case ... how many witnesses have they produced ? ... 10 ?
I was under the impression that it was necessary for them to first establish that the book had 'libeled' them, and then proceed with establishing how much damage the libel had caused
As far as I can see though, the first five days ( and the McCann witnesses ) have 'only' presented the case for damage caused by the book, without establishing if it is libelous in any way
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153
I'm no lawyer, Icabod, but it seems that the issues of damage caused and libel itself are closely related, if not one and the same thing in law. The above is only a general definition, and does not reflect Portuguese law specifically, but the point -as far as I understand it - is that something libelous, by definition, causes harm. (Conversely, a statement about someone that is incorrect but does not cause harm would not be defined as libel).
-
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153
I'm no lawyer, Icabod, but it seems that the issues of damage caused and libel itself are closely related, if not one and the same thing in law. The above is only a general definition, and does not reflect Portuguese law specifically, but the point -as far as I understand it - is that something libelous, by definition, causes harm. (Conversely, a statement about someone that is incorrect but does not cause harm would not be defined as libel).
I'm confused Sherlock ... are you saying that regardless of whether was is written is truthful and accurate, it will be considered libel by virtue of the fact it caused damage ?
-
I'm confused Sherlock ... are you saying that regardless of whether was is written is truthful and accurate, it will be considered libel by virtue of the fact it caused damage ?
Almost...
Libel is a published untruth. The libeler's untruths themselves are considered to constitute damage to the person being libeled.
In other words, after having established untruths, one need not go on to establish that damage was caused - merely in issuing a libelous statement, damage is considered to have been done.
At least this is what I understand from the 'dictionary definition'. Perhaps a lawyer could clarify here.
Having said that, in this case there is a complication, namely that the McCanns aren't only claiming damage to their personal reputations, but damage to the search, an additional point that is not a matter of logic or jurisprudence, but, presumably, a matter of establishing further facts.
-
Almost...
Libel is a published untruth. The libeler's untruths themselves are considered to constitute damage to the person being libeled.
In other words, after having established untruths, one need not go on to establish that damage was caused - merely in issuing a libelous statement, damage is considered to have been done.
At least this is what I understand from the 'dictionary definition'. Perhaps a lawyer could clarify here.
Having said that, in this case there is a complication, namely that the McCanns aren't only claiming damage to their personal reputations, but damage to the search, an additional point that is not a matter of logic or jurisprudence, but, presumably, a matter of establishing further facts.
So then, it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has 'damaged' them ? ... they will need to establish that it 'damaged' them because it was libelous ( false in it's assertions ) ?
-
So then, it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has 'damaged' them ? ... they will need to establish that it 'damaged' them because it was libelous ( false in it's assertions ) ?
As far as I understand, in theory, yes. Libel, or defamation, is by definition a false statement.
Saying something true about a person that happens to damage them - 'he is very fat', when he is in fact very fat, is not libel, despite the fact it could be damaging. You have to demonstrate that what has been said is false - 'he committed adultery' , when in fact he didn't.
But again, how exactly this works in court, presumably only a lawyer can say.
-
Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral has made untrue claims.
Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?
As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.
How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?
-
Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral has made untrue claims.
Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?
As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.
How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?
Thanks Sherlock ( it's nice to have another night-owl on the board )
I have no idea how much of Amaral's book they have to prove is false for libel to be established
The thing that has struck me though, is that in five days of presenting their case and witnesses the McCann lawyer has not pointed to ANYTHING written in the book and proved it to be false ... not a single sentence !
-
So then, it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has 'damaged' them ? ... they will need to establish that it 'damaged' them because it was libelous ( false in it's assertions ) ?
In a word yes. You cannot libel or defame someone with the truth no matter how bad it is. The libel has to be in the lie.
-
Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral has made untrue claims.
Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?
As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.
How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?
Reading between the lines the main thrust appears to be the claim that the Amaral book damaged the search for Madeleine by making claim that she is dead. In order to counter this the McCanns have to prove that she is alive.
-
The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body. But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.
-
The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body. But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.
So who is stopping any 'search' exactly ?
-
The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body. But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.
A priority after six years? Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?
-
A priority after six years? Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?
good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing
-
good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing
The crux of the matter has been this.
If they new Madeleine had a fatal accident and it was covered up, they would face severe criminal charges.
Likewise the setting up of the fund would be FRAUD.
-
good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing
god forbid you ever have a child go missing
-
Almost...
Libel is a published untruth. The libeler's untruths themselves are considered to constitute damage to the person being libeled.
In other words, after having established untruths, one need not go on to establish that damage was caused - merely in issuing a libelous statement, damage is considered to have been done.
At least this is what I understand from the 'dictionary definition'. Perhaps a lawyer could clarify here.
Having said that, in this case there is a complication, namely that the McCanns aren't only claiming damage to their personal reputations, but damage to the search, an additional point that is not a matter of logic or jurisprudence, but, presumably, a matter of establishing further facts.
I've read these exchanges with interest. I should stress, I am no lawyer and Jean Pierre is the one who could write authoritatively on this subject.
But it does seem that there are variations. In England, there is no separate and discrete requirement to establish damage, only to establish that statements that are untrue or (UK) not proved true, also lower reputation.
There can also be libel arising from statements that require special knowledge.
It wouldn't ordinarily be libel to congratulate someone on being pregnant, even if untrue. But if the woman is single and has a reputation for preaching the virtues of chastity and against sex before marriage, the statement would be libel
And truthful statements that are not placed in context can also be libel.
If you say that someone was tried for the crime of burglary (and that is true) you can be guilty of libel if you don't add (assuming that to be the case) that they were acquitted, because people might think that the charge remains unresolved.
All that is English law.
From proceedings in Portugal, and judging by the way Isabel Duarte has structured her case, there does seem to be a separate and distinct requirement to establish damage.
That seems to be why Isabel has begun by seeking to establish that Kate was driven to a point of near suicide by the course of events.
-
A priority after six years? Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?
What a cynical comment! We're speaking of a stolen child who has not yet proven to be a ghost. No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.
I have just heard an item of news here where the police are offering a very large reward for information about a schoolgirl who went missing in 1979 - 34 years ago, yet still taxpayers' money and police effort are being used to find her, or what happened to her.
-
That seems to be why Isabel has begun by seeking to establish that Kate was driven to a point of near suicide by the course of events.
Hearsay. A man, who is not a psychologist, reported she told him she considered suicide as an option. Only an expert could state whether she "was driven to a point of near suicide" and why.
-
Hearsay. A man, who is not a psychologist, reported she told him she considered suicide as an option. Only an expert could state whether she "was driven to a point of near suicide" and why.
What information do you have about the credentials of this man?
-
No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.
I do agree, but first let's clear the situation, starting with the reconstruction. Why should the AG report be bypassed ?
-
What a cynical comment! We're speaking of a stolen child who has not yet proven to be a ghost. No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.
I have just heard an item of news here where the police are offering a very large reward for information about a schoolgirl who went missing in 1979 - 34 years ago, yet still taxpayers' money and police effort are being used to find her, or what happened to her.
'No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.'
By that logic, all missing children should have the same amount of money,time and resources spent on them.Do you agree ?
and do you have any idea of how much that would cost the UK taxpayer ?
-
What information do you have about the credentials of this man?
I know what he declared to the court. You surely have read that.
Are you a psychologist ?
No.
-
And the effect of those lurid tabloid headlines on the twins ? What matters more to the McCanns, the public exposure of Amaral ( if that's what it is ) or their children's right to feel safe and secure ? It really is that simple.
Those tabloid headlines refer to a period in the past. The situation has no doubt been dealt with by the police and the parents can explain that to the children. They can also explain that it is the allegations of Amaral which may well have provoked such threats by inferring the guilt of the parents.
But the continued pushing by Amaral of his theory (yes thats all it is, an error-filled theory) that the parents were involved in some kind of cover-up may be the catalyst for further threats. It is to prevent that as well as to prevent the further damage to the search for Madeleine that would have persuaded the McCanns that the difficult balance of judgement lay in the route they have taken.
-
There's no such person here, you're taking this forum for what it is not. I can't orientate you though, I never crossed these acquaintances of yours.
At no point did I suggest there were such people here. I do suggest that you take a course in reading English if that is the conclusion you come to from reading my post.
And I simply do not believe that you have never "crossed" these people. I presume you have garbled the English again and mean "come across" rather than "crossed" which implies 'angered'.
Having seen your interactions with others on twitter I can see that these people are far closer acquaintances of yours though, than they will ever be of mine.
-
Reading between the lines the main thrust appears to be the claim that the Amaral book damaged the search for Madeleine by making claim that she is dead. In order to counter this the McCanns have to prove that she is alive.
I do not believe that is the case. They merely have to prove that she is possibly alive. And they could use the Files for that where it is clear in the archival report that is a possibility (however slight).
Amaral is claiming definitively in his book and in various appearances that she is dead. That simply is not a fact. It is perfectly possible that she is alive. I believe the statement of his lawyer to that very effect last week is a clear sign that Amaral is trying to step back from the claims he has previously made about death being a fact.
-
A priority after six years? Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?
What an interesting post?
Till Madeleine is proven to be dead I will consider her to be a child not a ghost. I acknowledge that the possibility of her being alive is slim but unlike others I will not crudely consign her to the earth in my mind without proof.
-
The crux of the matter has been this.
If they new Madeleine had a fatal accident and it was covered up, they would face severe criminal charges.
Likewise the setting up of the fund would be FRAUD.
What a pathetic but unsurprising summary?
That you and others can make the claim that those aspects are the crux of the matter demonstrates a great deal.
You are simply wrong.
The crux of the matter is Madeleine McCann, who at an incredibly vulnerable age went missing six years ago.
Your words reflect the priority of Amaral who did not seem to see this as the crux of the matter. Like you his focus was entirely on the parents and their actions.
You make no allowance for the other side of your question, if they knew (sic) no such thing. You are simply presuming as Amaral did that they did know.
But the reality is that if they did not know, then like him and all others who have accused this couple and harangued them, mocked them, accused them etc you have been part of one of the .........t pieces of harassment ever witnessed.
And the problem you have, just as Amaral has, is that you are just guessing that they are guilty. He has no proof of that. You have no proof of that. All the nastiness and hate directed at the McCanns is based on guesswork, nothing more, nothing less.
-
Those tabloid headlines refer to a period in the past. The situation has no doubt been dealt with by the police and the parents can explain that to the children. They can also explain that it is the allegations of Amaral which may well have provoked such threats by inferring the guilt of the parents.
But the continued pushing by Amaral of his theory (yes thats all it is, an error-filled theory) that the parents were involved in some kind of cover-up may be the catalyst for further threats. It is to prevent that as well as to prevent the further damage to the search for Madeleine that would have persuaded the McCanns that the difficult balance of judgement lay in the route they have taken.
That's high quality spin gilet, but a fairer alternative view is that a combination of the lurid newspaper headlines of 2007/8 and the McCann's own actions and decisions (e.g. Mitchell's 'Cooperman' press conference) led to the conspiracy theories and extremism in some places, not Mr Amaral's book.
This wave was at its peak in September 07 - nine months or so before publication of Mr Amaral's book.
-
Hearsay. A man, who is not a psychologist, reported she told him she considered suicide as an option. Only an expert could state whether she "was driven to a point of near suicide" and why.
Rather like those people who claim to be experts on scientific committees and claim to be able to advise people on matters related to sudden death but who are in fact not scientists at all.
I don't agree with you by the way. Having known someone for many years (a former colleague) who was "driven to a point of near suicide", having been with that person after one of her two serious suicide attempts, I feel perfectly capable of describing that fact and explaining why she was driven to do what she did. Thankfully she is no longer in those dark places and is working again very effectively but I am more than able to describe to any judge or jury the reasons for her actions and the depths of despair she was in. And I do not claim to be an expert.
Your clear attempt to rubbish the testimony of Alan Pike is not washing with me, I am afraid.
-
I do agree, but first let's clear the situation, starting with the reconstruction. Why should the AG report be bypassed ?
Perhaps you are unaware or the Portuguese police do not have computer simulated reconstructions. They are used by police in the UK to analyse ALL possible patterns of behaviour, actions, reactions, timings etc in a given scenario. They collate all the statements, timings and possibilities to determine the most likely sequence of events. It is highly likely that SY have used such a simulation of the scenario during their review/inquiry.
Full scale reconstructions are now largely for the purpose of publicity regarding a case.
We have no way of knowing (quite rightly as this is an ongoing investigation) if technology has been used and the AG suggestion has been dealt with in this way.
Unfortunately a public reconstruction which might have the benefit of jogging people's minds in the way Crimewatch often successfully does here even decades after an event seems to be out of the question in Portugal where publicity of a missing child is still rather taboo.
-
I've read these exchanges with interest. I should stress, I am no lawyer and Jean Pierre is the one who could write authoritatively on this subject.
But it does seem that there are variations. In England, there is no separate and discrete requirement to establish damage, only to establish that statements that are untrue or (UK) not proved true, also lower reputation.
There can also be libel arising from statements that require special knowledge.
It wouldn't ordinarily be libel to congratulate someone on being pregnant, even if untrue. But if the woman is single and has a reputation for preaching the virtues of chastity and against sex before marriage, the statement would be libel
And truthful statements that are not placed in context can also be libel.
If you say that someone was tried for the crime of burglary (and that is true) you can be guilty of libel if you don't add (assuming that to be the case) that they were acquitted, because people might think that the charge remains unresolved.
All that is English law.
From proceedings in Portugal, and judging by the way Isabel Duarte has structured her case, there does seem to be a separate and distinct requirement to establish damage.
That seems to be why Isabel has begun by seeking to establish that Kate was driven to a point of near suicide by the course of events.
This is enlightening, ferryman
I was wondering why there was so much initial emphasis on Kate's mental state, before some of the other major issues are addressed
-
Reading between the lines the main thrust appears to be the claim that the Amaral book damaged the search for Madeleine by making claim that she is dead. In order to counter this the McCanns have to prove that she is alive.
I don't quite understand this, Admin.
If the McCanns need to prove that she is alive in order to sue Amaral for libel, then why would they have been advised by their lawyers to take Amaral to court before having proof?
-
I don't quite understand this, Admin.
If the McCanns need to prove that she is alive in order to sue Amaral for libel, then why would they have been advised by their lawyers to take Amaral to court before having proof?
Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either. Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?
The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.
MW says it was after.
The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.
The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0
-
Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either. Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?
The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.
MW says it was after.
The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.
The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.
If MW had been a little more clued in he might have stated just how soon after. I suspect that information will be somehow passed to the Judge by ID over the next day or so of proceedings.
-
Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either. Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?
The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.
MW says it was after.
The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.
The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0
Interesting
So what is in the heads of the McCann lawyers? What are they really trying to prove?
-
Interesting
So what is in the heads of the McCann lawyers? What are they really trying to prove?
But of course, Sherlock, Amaral had been writing that book for months ... so it did interfere with the investigation.
There was a lot of work already done and a lot of money to come from that book
-
But of course, Sherlock, Amaral had been writing that book for months ... so it did interfere with the investigation.
There was a lot of work already done and a lot of money to come from that book
Prove the investigation was interfered with by the writing of the book.
-
Prove the investigation was interfered with by the writing of the book.
Everything has been affected by that damned book.
Still Amaral has made a fortune out of it 8)-))) 8**8:/:
-
Everything has been affected by that damned book.
Still Amaral has made a fortune out of it 8)-))) 8**8:/:
Where is this money then ?
>@@(*&)
-
But of course, Sherlock, Amaral had been writing that book for months ... so it did interfere with the investigation.
There was a lot of work already done and a lot of money to come from that book
I have no doubt that Amaral's motivations were self-serving, Sadie.
The point is, how are the McCanns going to prove that in court. So far, based on what they seem to be coming up with, it is hard to work out any kind of strategy on their part.
If the 'investigation' was impeded by Amaral's book, go to the people conducting the investigation at the time, namely the detectives, and ask them specifically how their work was affected. David Edgar failed to give us any reasons.
I am not saying Amaral's thesis has substance - personally, I think it's nonsense - but proving so requires facts.
You can't combat hearsay with more hearsay.