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: Carew on May 04, 2014, 10:40:04 AM
-
Could the evidence SY have apparently used in order to declare the McCanns "not suspects" be used by the McCanns against Mr Amaral at the libel/defamation trial?
You would think that this investigation/exoneration by SY would have been used to help the McCanns in presenting their case against Mr Amaral.
-
Could the evidence SY have apparently used in order to declare the McCanns "not suspects" be used by the McCanns against Mr Amaral at the libel/defamation trial?
You would think that this investigation/exoneration by SY would have been used to help the McCanns in presenting their case against Mr Amaral.
It is strange that DCI Redwood hasn't appeared as witness & presented the evidence which proves their innocence, given that there must be some & he is working very closely with them.
Oh, no it's not, because there aint any
-
It is strange that DCI Redwood hasn't appeared as witness & presented the evidence which proves their innocence, given that there must be some & he is working very closely with them.
Oh, no it's not, because there aint any
Well.........it doesn`t seem very helpful of him, does it?
-
Well.........it doesn`t seem very helpful of him, does it?
Surely he would want to help, given that he knows they are innocent.
He could also dispel any remaining public suspicion of them & end the ordeal of the terrible hate campaign by showing this evidence, but he hasn't
-
Surely he would want to help, given that he knows they are innocent.
He could also dispel any remaining public suspicion of them & end the ordeal of the terrible hate campaign by showing this evidence, but he hasn't
He says they are not suspects...that's enough for the general public it seems
-
He says they are not suspects...that's enough for the general public it seems
Yep, he has given his word, because he doesn't have any evidence.
-
Surely he would want to help, given that he knows they are innocent.
He could also dispel any remaining public suspicion of them & end the ordeal of the terrible hate campaign by showing this evidence, but he hasn't
Their legal team would also be keen to use the weight of SY`s evidence to the McCanns` advantage against Mr Amaral, perhaps.
-
Their legal team would also be keen to use the weight of SY`s evidence to the McCanns` advantage against Mr Amaral, perhaps.
have you any reason to believe that they have not used SY's staement and any other available evidence in the libel case
-
have you any reason to believe that they have not used SY's staement and any other available evidence in the libel case
Such powerful backing; such a compelling statement of exoneration might have warranted a mention somewhere along the line, maybe...........and perhaps a swift conclusion to the trial?
As with any of SY`s comments...........including the one about the McCanns being non-suspects..........perhaps they are subject to change as the review progresses and maybe there is no conclusive evidence as yet, which exonerates them ?
-
Such powerful backing; such a compelling statement of exoneration might have warranted a mention somewhere along the line, maybe...........and perhaps a swift conclusion to the trial?
As with any of SY`s comments...........including the one about the McCanns being non-suspects..........perhaps they are subject to change as the review progresses and maybe there is no conclusive evidence as yet, which exonerates them ?
A swift conclusion to the trial......the judge has to hear all the arguments...including the latest re maddie being a ward of court
-
Scotland Yard have stated that none of the members of the tapas group are suspects but that is not set in stone. This situation and indeed their status could change very quickly as has been seen in other investigations.
At no time have SY stated that the tapas-9 are innocent because they can't. Until such time as it is determined what happened to Madeleine McCann every single person who had contact with her in Praia da Luz on or before 3rd May 2007 must remain under suspicion.
In those circumstances therefore, SY cannot possibly provide anything of consequence to the libel trial. I will go further than that, I cannot see how a Portuguese Judge can possibly make any decision in a case where it is still not known what happened to Madeleine McCann and who was involved.
-
Scotland Yard have stated that none of the members of the tapas group are suspects but that is not set in stone. This situation and indeed their status could change very quickly as has been seen in other investigations.
At no time have SY stated that the tapas-9 are innocent because they can't. Until such time as it is determined what happened to Madeleine McCann every single person who had contact with her in Praia da Luz on or before 3rd May 2007 must remain under suspicion.
You do realise that no no one is ever declared innocent even after a full trial so SY certainly cant declare the mcccans innocent.
I agree things can change but can you remember SY ever declaring someone not suspect and then charging them. My opinion is that Redwood MUST be pretty sure
-
You do realise that no no one is ever declared innocent even after a full trial so SY certainly cant declare the mcccans innocent.
I agree things can change but can you remember SY ever declaring someone not suspect and then charging them. My opinion is that Redwood MUST be pretty sure
I would agree that Redwood is pretty sure he is not going to charge them.
-
I didn't realise you were one of the [... moderated ...]
I don't see myself as one, either, but I'm fairly sure that Redwood is looking in other directions.
-
Scotland Yard have stated that none of the members of the tapas group are suspects but that is not set in stone. This situation and indeed their status could change very quickly as has been seen in other investigations.
At no time have SY stated that the tapas-9 are innocent because they can't. Until such time as it is determined what happened to Madeleine McCann every single person who had contact with her in Praia da Luz on or before 3rd May 2007 must remain under suspicion.
In those circumstances therefore, SY cannot possibly provide anything of consequence to the libel trial. I will go further than that, I cannot see how a Portuguese Judge can possibly make any decision in a case where it is still not known what happened to Madeleine McCann and who was involved.
The Portuguese judge is making a decision re libel...the very fact that no one knows what happened to Maddie undermines amarals case that he does...simple
-
The Portuguese judge is making a decision re libel...the very fact that no one knows what happened to Maddie undermines amarals case that he does...simple
By the same token that it undermines the McCann's claim for damages since they cannot prove non complicity.
-
By the same token that it undermines the McCann's claim for damages since they cannot prove non complicity.
who says the mccanns have to prove non complicity....does anyone on this forum really understand the libel process in portugal
-
who says the mccanns have to prove non complicity....does anyone on this forum really understand the libel process in portugal
I for one do not so perhaps you will be good enough to explain it to us in detail such that we do understand?
-
I for one do not so perhaps you will be good enough to explain it to us in detail such that we do understand?
read the post again its self explanatory
-
Why would any of the SY team declare the McCann's of any of the tapas group guilty or not?
We had that in PDL and all it did was shut KM up and the tapas mob.
-
Why would any of the SY team declare the McCann's of any of the tapas group guilty or not?
We had that in PDL and all it did was shut KM up and the tapas mob.
What do you mean,
the tapas mob ?
How untrue and how unnecessarily rude
-
Referring back to the opening post for a moment, I can't see anything SY has uncovered being of any use to anyone at this stage. It will be interesting however to see if the Judge decides to proceed with a judgement even though what happened to Madeleine is still unknown except for possibly one or two individuals.
-
Referring back to the opening post for a moment, I can't see anything SY has uncovered being of any use to anyone at this stage. It will be interesting however to see if the Judge decides to proceed with a judgement even though what happened to Madeleine is still unknown except for possibly one or two individuals.
the judge is not ruling on what happened to Maddie...it's a libel trial
-
Referring back to the opening post for a moment, I can't see anything SY has uncovered being of any use to anyone at this stage. It will be interesting however to see if the Judge decides to proceed with a judgement even though what happened to Madeleine is still unknown except for possibly one or two individuals.
Surely if that were a consideration, the trial wouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
-
the judge is not ruling on what happened to Maddie...it's a libel trial
So tell me Dave...what is the libel claim?
-
So tell me Dave...what is the libel claim?
The claim is defamation...amaral has accused the mcccans of covering up the accidental death of their daughter and hiding the body
-
The claim is defamation...amaral has accused the mcccans of covering up the accidental death of their daughter and hiding the body
And who is going to say he is wrong? He can't defame them if he is right.
-
And who is going to say he is wrong?
Where does the burden of proof lie in Portuguese libel claims...does amaral have to prove he is right or do the mcccanns have to prove he is wrong...do you really know the answer
-
Where does the burden of proof lie in Portuguese libel claims...does amaral have to prove he is right or do the mcccanns have to prove he is wrong...do you really know the answer
Do any of us? Is that not why we are waiting upon the judge's decision?
-
Do any of us? Is that not why we are waiting upon the judge's decision?
No...in the UK the burden of proof would be on amaral...posters are making claims...as john has just done...that the mccans have to prove amaral wrong..I am asking does John know the law or is he just guessing
-
read the post again its self explanatory
So you include yourself in the "don't know gee from haw" when it comes to Portuguese libel laws?
Now I understand.
-
In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.
Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.
What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.
Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain. He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation. To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.
-
In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.
Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.
What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.
Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain. He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation. To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.
So are you saying that the Mcanns have to prove themselves innocent to win the libel trial..I ask you again..is this just your opinion or do you have definite knowledge...you have continually avoided answering the question..
I happen to think from what I have seen that amaral IS a fool..if he is in such a strong position why has he run away for so long
-
Where does the burden of proof lie in Portuguese libel claims...does amaral have to prove he is right or do the mcccanns have to prove he is wrong...do you really know the answer
The Murat PT libel case was interesting... but only won on appeal.
-
In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.
Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.
What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.
Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain. He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation. To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.
But he hasn't got any evidence, John
Nothing !
He misunderstood the dog alerts.
-
The burden of proof is with the Plaintiff in Portugal, in the UK it is with the Defender. Duarte therefore has her work cut out for her while the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance remain undetermined.
-
The burden of proof is with the Plaintiff in Portugal, in the UK it is with the Defender. Duarte therefore has her work cut out for her while the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance remain undetermined.
where have you got this information from..how familiar are you with Portuguese law...I feel you are just repeating things you have read on forums
-
In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.
Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.
What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.
Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain. He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation. To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.
Amaral must do much more than that.
In the light of clear, documented evidence to the contrary, he must prove that the official record is wrong and he is right about Harrison's alleged role in the enquiry.
If the McCanns and Amaral have Stuart Prior's report, he must be able to show by reference to that report that he (Amaral) contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic evidence, then sent Prior away with a flea in his ear to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.
He must show where, in the files, it is stated that Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer who asked her where her daughter was.
He must prove that the McCanns set up a fraudulent fund in their (deceased) daughter's name.
He must prove that by propagating the theory as if "fact" that Madeleine is dead, he has not discouraged the search for Madeleine by encouraging the belief (and outright declaring as if fact) that she is dead.
And so on ...
-
You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman. Amaral doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon. Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.
Remember too that we have been here before. The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie". The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law. It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
If Amaral's contention is that on the balance of probability the McCanns were involved, then he will have a good chance of successfully defended the action against him and if he prevails he would be entitled to financial reparation.
-
You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman. Amaral doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon. Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.
Remember too that we have been here before. The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie". The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law. It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
Partially right ...
The couple were suing weekly the tabloid Tal & Qual over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
The front page story caused a sensation around the world, as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
This week the couple, from Rothley, Leics, withdrew their defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.
It could argue the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.
The source said the McCanns want to concentrate instead on their £1 million case against Goncalo Amaral, the former head of the Madeleine investigation.
They also suspect Amaral may have been behind the story in Tal & Qual, which has since folded.
The source said: "The libel action against Tal & Qual has been dropped for a number of reasons. Firstly, the newspaper went bust some time ago.
"Secondly Tal & Qual could probably have mounted a defence, as they were reporting what a certain police officer believed at the time.
"Kate and Gerry have been advised it is much better to go for the source of the story.
"When the story first came out it was a huge shock for Kate and Gerry and they did not believe it was true."
The Tal & Qual article was published three months after Madeleine went missing during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve.
It claimed that detectives believed the parents had either caused a fatal accident or had given drugs to their daughter.
Lawyers representing the McCanns filed a writ against the newspaper, its editor Emidio Fernando, and reporter Catarina Vaz Guerreiro.
But two weeks later the couple, both doctors, were sensationally named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in the case.
Deluded chief investigator Goncalo Amaral wrongly believed they had covered up their three-year-old daughter´s death, even though there was no evidence to support his theory.
He was later taken off the case, which was eventually archived and remains unsolved.
In July 2008 the McCanns were cleared of any wrongdoing in a formal report by Portugal´s Attorney General Jose Pinto Monteiro.
They have always believed their daughter was abducted.
Mr Fernando said: "I had total faith in the source and was certain the police were looking at the couple.
"It's not a victory, because I never saw this as a war. I was, as I am today, totally calm about what I wrote."
Gerry and Kate McCann´s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This is a matter for Kate and Gerry´s lawyers in consultation with Kate and Gerry, of course."
Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims.
The McCanns are suing him for at least £1 million for defamation and for breaching their human rights.
They have employed one of Portugal´s leading libel lawyers, Isabel Duarte, in a case expected to be heard in Lisbon next summer.
If they win they will use the money to continue the search for Madeleine, who would now be six.
The Find Madeleine Fund, set up to finance the couple's worldwide search for their daughter, is expected to run out of money by the end of the year, it was reported this week.
The McCanns also plan to sue the group behind a leaflet blaming them for Madeleine´s disappearance.
The couple were "deeply upset" by the fliers, produced by a group called the "Madeleine Foundation", which has accused them of neglect.
The leaflets were received by 10,000 people in the McCann's home village of Rothley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6057918/McCanns-drop-libel-case-against-Portuguese-newspaper.html
They went for Amaral rather than the paper, which also went bust!
-
You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman. Amaral doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon. Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.
Remember too that we have been here before. The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie". The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law. It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
If Amaral persists that on the balance of probability, that the McCanns were involved, then he will have successfully defended the action against him and would be entitled to financial reparation.
I am not confusing anything. The proof is implicit in the evidence of the files.
Amaral must refute what is written in the files
-
We have all seen what is in the files which were illegally leaked to the public by Levy. Amaral's book is an edited version of the files. Does anyone know - would the judge have been granted access to the full files including all the unreleased material Amaral would have been privilege to, and would the McCanns lawyer been permitted the same right? If not, I cannot see how the position has changed since the McCanns failed to get the book banned.
-
We have all seen what is in the files which were illegally leaked to the public by Levy. Amaral's book is an edited version of the files. Does anyone know - would the judge have been granted access to the full files including all the unreleased material Amaral would have been privilege to, and would the McCanns lawyer been permitted the same right? If not, I cannot see how the position has changed since the McCanns failed to get the book banned.
Both edited and highly corrupted (by Amaral in his book) I would say.
And I think we can be confident that, certainly the prosecutors, have seen all the reports we don't see.
For example, The Express got hold of Lee Rainbow's report, which has never appeared with the rest of the files that appear on-line.
I think the judges will have seen everything.
-
Both edited and highly corrupted (by Amaral in his book) I would say.
And I think we can be confident that, certainly the prosecutors, have seen all the reports we don't see.
For example, The Express got hold of Lee Rainbow's report, which has never appeared with the rest of the files that appear on-line.
I think the judges will have seen everything.
So you will be happy with the decision, whatever it is ? 8(0(*
-
As I stated earlier, Dr Amaral doesn't have to prove anything, that burden under Portuguese Libel Law lies firmly with the McCann's lawyer Isabel Duarte. In the absence of any evidence pertaining to Madeleine's fate and whereabouts however I think she will struggle.
-
As I stated earlier, Dr Amaral doesn't have to prove anything, that burden under Portuguese Libel Law lies firmly with the McCann's lawyer Isabel Duarte. In the absence of any evidence pertaining to Madeleine's fate and whereabouts however I think she will struggle.
You need to tell amaral because all he has been doing is trying to prove his thesis in court...you are wrong
-
You need to tell amaral because all he has been doing is trying to prove his thesis in court...you are wrong
Unless there are masses of mistranslations in Amarals book - it is full of lies, lies by omission, and spiteful innuendo which can easily be proved by comparing his versions of events with the files. .
I believe'' innuendo'' is considered libellous in this country - whether it is in Portugal I don't know.
Also IMO the fact that he deliberately misleads his readers into believing they are reading a first hand account is also extremely dishonest.
IMO the book can be proved to be libellous, but I don't see how it can be proved that it harmed the search for Madeline as how can you quantify that?
IMO the McCanns would be content just to have the book declared as libellous and are not bothered about any compensation. The only reason they asked for £1,000,000 is because that is the estimated profit Amaral made and they object to him making a penny out of their daughter. I can fully understand that.
Personally I find the whole Portuguese legal system totally bewildering and after seeing what happened in the Ciipriano case have very little faith that justice will be done in this case.
-
Unless there are masses of mistranslations in Amarals book - it is full of lies, lies by omission, and spiteful innuendo which can easily be proved by comparing his versions of events with the files. .
I believe'' innuendo'' is considered libellous in this country - whether it is in Portugal I don't know.
Also IMO the fact that he deliberately misleads his readers into believing they are reading a first hand account is also extremely dishonest.
IMO the book can be proved to be libellous, but I don't see how it can be proved that it harmed the search for Madeline as how can you quantify that?
IMO the McCanns would be content just to have the book declared as libellous and are not bothered about any compensation. The only reason they asked for £1,000,000 is because that is the estimated profit Amaral made and they object to him making a penny out of their daughter. I can fully understand that.
Personally I find the whole Portuguese legal system totally bewildering and after seeing what happened in the Ciipriano case have very little faith that justice will be done in this case.
the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.
-
the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.
Or they missed the point.
-
Or they missed the point.
Or they couldn't if they had to.
-
the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.
But by your admission your knowledge of Portuguese libel law amount to three fifths of five eighths of FA.
-
But by your admission your knowledge of Portuguese libel law amount to three fifths of five eighths of FA.
As high as that ? 8)-)))
-
Partially right ...
The couple were suing weekly the tabloid Tal & Qual over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
The front page story caused a sensation around the world, as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
This week the couple, from Rothley, Leics, withdrew their defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.
It could argue the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.
The source said the McCanns want to concentrate instead on their £1 million case against Goncalo Amaral, the former head of the Madeleine investigation.
They also suspect Amaral may have been behind the story in Tal & Qual, which has since folded.
The source said: "The libel action against Tal & Qual has been dropped for a number of reasons. Firstly, the newspaper went bust some time ago.
"Secondly Tal & Qual could probably have mounted a defence, as they were reporting what a certain police officer believed at the time.
"Kate and Gerry have been advised it is much better to go for the source of the story.
"When the story first came out it was a huge shock for Kate and Gerry and they did not believe it was true."
The Tal & Qual article was published three months after Madeleine went missing during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve.
It claimed that detectives believed the parents had either caused a fatal accident or had given drugs to their daughter.
Lawyers representing the McCanns filed a writ against the newspaper, its editor Emidio Fernando, and reporter Catarina Vaz Guerreiro.
But two weeks later the couple, both doctors, were sensationally named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in the case.
Deluded chief investigator Goncalo Amaral wrongly believed they had covered up their three-year-old daughter´s death, even though there was no evidence to support his theory.
He was later taken off the case, which was eventually archived and remains unsolved.
In July 2008 the McCanns were cleared of any wrongdoing in a formal report by Portugal´s Attorney General Jose Pinto Monteiro.
They have always believed their daughter was abducted.
Mr Fernando said: "I had total faith in the source and was certain the police were looking at the couple.
"It's not a victory, because I never saw this as a war. I was, as I am today, totally calm about what I wrote."
Gerry and Kate McCann´s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This is a matter for Kate and Gerry´s lawyers in consultation with Kate and Gerry, of course."
Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims.
The McCanns are suing him for at least £1 million for defamation and for breaching their human rights.
They have employed one of Portugal´s leading libel lawyers, Isabel Duarte, in a case expected to be heard in Lisbon next summer.
If they win they will use the money to continue the search for Madeleine, who would now be six.
The Find Madeleine Fund, set up to finance the couple's worldwide search for their daughter, is expected to run out of money by the end of the year, it was reported this week.
The McCanns also plan to sue the group behind a leaflet blaming them for Madeleine´s disappearance.
The couple were "deeply upset" by the fliers, produced by a group called the "Madeleine Foundation", which has accused them of neglect.
The leaflets were received by 10,000 people in the McCann's home village of Rothley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6057918/McCanns-drop-libel-case-against-Portuguese-newspaper.html
They went for Amaral rather than the paper, which also went bust!
The writ on behalf of the plaintiffs was against a legal person and two natural persons; Tal & Qual, the editor and the writer of the piece. Tal & Qual ceased to exist as a legal person by virtue of liquidation. The plaintiffs withdrew their action against the other parties.
They are the bald facts of what happened. Reasons etc don't affect what actually happened.
-
No...in the UK the burden of proof would be on amaral...posters are making claims...as john has just done...that the mccans have to prove amaral wrong..I am asking does John know the law or is he just guessing
In Portugal, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means, that the McCanns must prove that Gonçalo Amaral committed libel or defamation.
-
We have all seen what is in the files which were illegally leaked to the public by Levy. Amaral's book is an edited version of the files. Does anyone know - would the judge have been granted access to the full files including all the unreleased material Amaral would have been privilege to, and would the McCanns lawyer been permitted the same right? If not, I cannot see how the position has changed since the McCanns failed to get the book banned.
Levy was not the only person who had access to the official police files. Anyone could have gone to Portimão Courthouse and requested them. According to Portuguese law, court decisions and police files are public so that citizens can see how investigations have been carried out, so there was nothing illegal about their being made public.
You seem to forget that the DVDs of the police files were made part of the hearing concerning the book ban despite Isabel Duarte's opposition.
-
In Portugal, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means, that the McCanns must prove that Gonçalo Amaral committed libel or defamation.
It is plain to see amaral has libelled
-
It is plain to see amaral has libelled
That has not yet been determined by the Court.
-
That has not yet been determined by the Court.
I am well aware of that and am speaking in general terms. what amaral has said would certainly be considered libellous in the UK. What we don't know is exactly how libel laws work in Portugal. From what we have seen of transcripts from the trial the McCanns have made no attempt to prove themselves innocent of any of the allegations made by amaral...that would imply that they don't have to. Amaral has brought witnesses to support his allegations which would imply that he has to prove his allegations are valid. the truth is no one really knows Portugal libel law in detail
-
I am well aware of that and am speaking in general terms. what amaral has said would certainly be considered libellous in the UK. What we don't know is exactly how libel laws work in Portugal. From what we have seen of transcripts from the trial the McCanns have made no attempt to prove themselves innocent of any of the allegations made by amaral...that would imply that they don't have to. Amaral has brought witnesses to support his allegations which would imply that he has to prove his allegations are valid. the truth is no one really knows Portugal libel law in detail
I believe the injured party has first to provide proof of the defamation by the accused and then the accused has to prove his innocence of the charge and provide proof of authenticity in the offending content. That is how I read it ,but happy to be corrected.
Some reading on PT Law........................
Portugal defamation laws
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://bocc.ubi.pt/pag/estado-portugues-codigo-penal.html
How it works in portugai
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://wsaraiva.com/2013/06/12/calunia-difamacao-e-injuria-os-crimes-contra-a-honra/
Broken down
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://static.publico.pt/nos/livro_estilo/25-fichas-l.html
-
As Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro repeatedly told witnesses appearing before her in the libel trial; it is her job and no one elses (unless she is replaced) to compare the book and the police files and rule whether or not the McCanns had been defamed
-
The writ on behalf of the plaintiffs was against a legal person and two natural persons; Tal & Qual, the editor and the writer of the piece. Tal & Qual ceased to exist as a legal person by virtue of liquidation. The plaintiffs withdrew their action against the other parties.
They are the bald facts of what happened. Reasons etc don't affect what actually happened.
the headline was... "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
No wonder they decided to withdraw the writ...they had no defence as the statement was true
-
As Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro repeatedly told witnesses appearing before her in the libel trial; it is her job and no one elses (unless she is replaced) to compare the book and the police files and rule whether or not the McCanns had been defamed
That's an interesting statement and confirms my view that the McCanns do not have to prove anything...the judge can decide simply by comparing the book and the files...no burden of proof on the McCanns
-
You need to tell amaral because all he has been doing is trying to prove his thesis in court...you are wrong
I don't recall any of his witnesses referring to any specific aspect of his thesis and I edited and proof read every transcript at least twice. The only mention ever made of the hypothesis or thesis and restated by several of Amaral's witnesses was that it reflected the PJ investigation up until the point when Amaral was taken off the case.
ETA If I recall correctly, the judge wouldn't entertain any comment directly related to the McCann's culpability.
-
My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.
-
My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.
Do you remember what the judge said when paivia, I think it was ...gave evidence. She said on the front of the book it says ...something like..."new revelations" the judge was quite scathing about it...rather scuppers your argumant
-
My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.
There you are... I understand MC is the judge...
MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this book?
RP Compared to the investigation, nothing.
The Judge seizes the book, on her desk, and waves it in the direction of the screen.
MC – Doesn't the cover say it has unique revelations?
TVI's lawyer says "no".
The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.
RP answers that there is nothing new in the book.
MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?
RP mumbles.
MC – Is there or is there not?
RP mumbles.
MC insists again and again RP mumbles.
MC – Then there are no revelations?
There is a few seconds silence, like a relief after a tension.
-
There you are... I understand MC is the judge...
MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this book?
RP Compared to the investigation, nothing.
The Judge seizes the book, on her desk, and waves it in the direction of the screen.
MC – Doesn't the cover say it has unique revelations?
TVI's lawyer says "no".
The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.
RP answers that there is nothing new in the book.
MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?
RP mumbles.
MC – Is there or is there not?
RP mumbles.
MC insists again and again RP mumbles.
MC – Then there are no revelations!
There is a few seconds silence, like a relief after a tension.
The judge has a sense of humor, there are no revelations.
Just some misleading advertising on the cover.
-
The judge has a sense of humor, there are no revelations.
Just some misleading advertising on the cover.
I think you and amaral work on the theory hat if one lie doesn't work...try two
-
Do you remember what the judge said when paivia, I think it was ...gave evidence. She said on the front of the book it says ...something like..."new revelations" the judge was quite scathing about it...rather scuppers your argumant
Hardly! the judge effectively said there were no new revelations in the book and as I said earlier the judge made it quite clear whose job it was to compare and rule. I don't recall her saying it was your job. Unless of course you are Judge Maria in mufti
-
One has to remember that new revelations mean different things to different people. As stated, the Amaral position is that the book simply reflected the investigation up until his enforced departure.
-
One has to remember that new revelations mean different things to different people. As stated, the Amaral position is that the book simply reflected the investigation up until his enforced departure.
A small snag.
It didn't (and doesn't) ...
-
Hardly! the judge effectively said there were no new revelations in the book and as I said earlier the judge made it quite clear whose job it was to compare and rule. I don't recall her saying it was your job. Unless of course you are Judge Maria in mufti
the judge asked the question ...therefore she did not know the answer...keep dreaming
-
It was a damned if you do and damned if you don't question.
If there were revelations in the book, Amaral withheld information from the original enquiry.
And if there weren't, Amaral lied ...