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: ferryman on September 24, 2013, 05:23:52 PM
-
When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?
-
When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?
Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.
-
Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.
Car crash?
In store right enough, I would say, for later on in the trial.
But it won't be the McCanns crashing ...
-
When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?
The book isn't intended to try to prove his theory, because the shelving of the case demonstrated it cannot be proven (though neither can any other theory). It's a theory. The lawyer may have his own and still represent Mr Amaral. No problem.
-
The book isn't intended to try to prove his theory, because the shelving of the case demonstrated it cannot be proven (though neither can any other theory). It's a theory. The lawyer may have his own and still represent Mr Amaral. No problem.
Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)
-
Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I'll have a stab at it
Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case
The Public Prosecutor, prior to archiving, concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed ... one of which was 'abduction' ( as claimed by the McCanns ) ... and another of which was Neglectful Homicide ( as claimed by Amaral )
Amaral ( and his lawyer ) must acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the 'possibility' that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive
However, whilst acknowledging that possibility, Amaral's own conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )
Amaral's lawyer, whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor, is defending his client's right, under the Portuguese constitution, to express his own conclusion and opinion based on the knowledge available to him
Could that be it ?
-
Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)
We know but it seems the evidence claimed in the book isn't being challenged in the courtroom? Instead it appears they are concentrating on emotion.
Why do you think they do not appear to be challenging the evidence?
-
I'll have a stab at it
Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case
The Public Prosecutor, prior to archiving, concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed ... one of which was 'abduction' ( as claimed by the McCanns ) ... and another of which was Neglectful Homicide ( as claimed by Amaral )
Amaral ( and his lawyer ) must acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the 'possibility' that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive
However, whilst acknowledging that possibility, Amaral's own conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )
Amaral's lawyer, whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor, is defending his client's right, under the Portuguese constitution, to express his own conclusion and opinion based on the knowledge available to him
Could that be it ?
Sounds logical to me 8((()*/
-
Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)
But ferryman, although I don't know the text that was submitted to the Court for this action, what I understood from Isabel Duarte's own words in the first day, is that this is a civil case for reparation of damages suffered, within the Civil Law of Civil Responsibility (the same law you use if a building crashes over your car or your head). If you recall, the previous trial invoked personality rights, the ones that are invoked in defamation crime cases, the only ones that could account for the arrest of the books.
Now we are on a different level. What is being argued (and the trial reports reflect that) is that the publication of the book and TV documentary caused damages that the claimants want to be compensated financially for.
The problem is that so far they have not presented any documented proof that harm was suffered. No medical testimonies, no psychiatric evaluations, no statistics experts,....nada, but a load of smoke.
-
I'll have a stab at it
Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case
The Public Prosecutor, prior to archiving, concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed ... one of which was 'abduction' ( as claimed by the McCanns ) ... and another of which was Neglectful Homicide ( as claimed by Amaral )
Amaral ( and his lawyer ) must acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the 'possibility' that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive
However, whilst acknowledging that possibility, Amaral's own conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )
Amaral's lawyer, whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor, is defending his client's right, under the Portuguese constitution, to express his own conclusion and opinion based on the knowledge available to him
Could that be it ?
Nope:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… 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
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
-
Car crash?
In store right enough, I would say, for later on in the trial.
But it won't be the McCanns crashing ...
(http://i.imgur.com/5syl0aF.jpg)
"The McCanns are in full control. We shall crush Amaral"
-
(http://i.imgur.com/5syl0aF.jpg)
"The McCanns are in full control. We shall crush Amaral"
Amaral on the eve of his defeat at the libel trial?
-
But ferryman, although I don't know the text that was submitted to the Court for this action, what I understood from Isabel Duarte's own words in the first day, is that this is a civil case for reparation of damages suffered, within the Civil Law of Civil Responsibility (the same law you use if a building crashes over your car or your head). If you recall, the previous trial invoked personality rights, the ones that are invoked in defamation crime cases, the only ones that could account for the arrest of the books.
Now we are on a different level. What is being argued (and the trial reports reflect that) is that the publication of the book and TV documentary caused damages that the claimants want to be compensated financially for.
The problem is that so far they have not presented any documented proof that harm was suffered. No medical testimonies, no psychiatric evaluations, no statistics experts,....nada, but a load of smoke.
What did Murat present in his (successful) action against Correia de Mahaha?
-
Nope:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… 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
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
That's a document. Not law.
Why do you think it appears the evidence in the book isn't being challenged?
-
What did Murat present in his (successful) action against Correia de Mahaha?
I have no idea, because I didn't even know that he had any case against Correio da Manhã.
-
Nope:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… 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
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
I have just reread the Public Prosecutor's final report again, to double check, and he most certainly does leave open, as a possible explanation for the disappearance 'Neglectful Homicide'
-
I have no idea, because I didn't even know that he had any case against Correio da Manhã.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1534.0
-
Meanwhile I checked it out...
http://www.jn.pt/Dossies/dossie.aspx?content_id=3204064&dossier=O%20caso%20Maddie%20McCann (http://www.jn.pt/Dossies/dossie.aspx?content_id=3204064&dossier=O%20caso%20Maddie%20McCann)
Portuguese Journal condemned to pay 15 000€ to Murat
Extract:
In question was the "moral damage" suffered by Murat in the sequence of several articles in that newspaper, that, according to the Tribunal, attributed him a "sick personality, in areas not only of pedophilia as also of zoophilia, compatible with the practice of a criminal action related to the case of the unfortunate child"
(Em causa os "danos morais" sofridos por Murat na sequência de várias notícias publicadas naquele jornal, que, segundo o tribunal, lhe atribuem "uma personalidade doentia, da área não só da pedofilia como até da zooerastia, compatível com a prática de ilícito criminal relacionado com o desaparecimento de infortunada criança".)
The compensation, due because of the violation of the right to peace and serenity, will be paied by the three journalists that signed the news and by the company that owns the newspaper.
(A indemnização, pela violação do direito à paz e ao sossego, será paga solidariamente pelos três jornalistas que assinaram as notícias e pela empresa proprietária do jornal.)
"The aim to increase the numbers cannot obfuscate the duties of the journalists, and in fact the consecrated status, of respect to the presumption of innocence, the non gathering of declarations or images that may bruise the dignity of persons, as well as the publication of news that induce discrimination", states the "acordão" (legal document) that Lusa had access to.
("O objetivo de aumento de tiragens não pode obnubilar os deveres jornalísticos, aliás de consagração estatutária, de respeito pela presunção de inocência, de não recolha de declarações ou imagens que atinjam a dignidade das pessoas, bem como de publicação de notícias que suscitem discriminação", refere o acórdão da Relação, a que a Lusa teve acesso.)
-
Considering the harassment that Murat suffered, 15000€ is ridiculous.
But there is no possible comparison between Murat and the McCann. Murat didn't invite the journos to interview him, Murat didn't have anything to do with the child, Murat was a victim because he was too helpful.
-
Thanks Luz.
So in exactly the same way that Murat was accused of certain things he couldn't, by definition, disprove, but which the court accepted were untrue, so there is not a shred of evidence implicating the McCanns in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, despite very specific accusations against them.
Just as Murat prevailed in his action, so the McCanns should prevail in theirs ...
-
I'll have a stab at it
Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case
The Public Prosecutor, prior to archiving, concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed ... one of which was 'abduction' ( as claimed by the McCanns ) ... and another of which was Neglectful Homicide ( as claimed by Amaral )
Amaral ( and his lawyer ) must acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the 'possibility' that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive
However, whilst acknowledging that possibility, Amaral's own conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )
Amaral's lawyer, whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor, is defending his client's right, under the Portuguese constitution, to express his own conclusion and opinion based on the knowledge available to him
Could that be it ?
I agree Icabod, and clearly expressed
-
I'll have a stab at it
Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case
The Public Prosecutor, prior to archiving, concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed ... one of which was 'abduction' ( as claimed by the McCanns ) ... and another of which was Neglectful Homicide ( as claimed by Amaral )
Amaral ( and his lawyer ) must acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the 'possibility' that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive
However, whilst acknowledging that possibility, Amaral's own conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )
Amaral's lawyer, whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor, is defending his client's right, under the Portuguese constitution, to express his own conclusion and opinion based on the knowledge available to him
Could that be it ?
Makes a lot sense, at least to me ?{)(**