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: faithlilly on June 17, 2014, 05:14:26 PM
-
We are lead to believe by gilet, one of our fellow forum members, that once the McCanns have won their case against Amaral in Portugal they are considering suing him for libel in the UK.
Your thoughts please on this.
1212
-
We are lead to believe by gilet, one of our fellow forum members, that once the McCanns have won their case against Amaral in Portugal they are considering suing him for libel in the UK.
Your thoughts please on this.
Well that should prove interesting, in their ongoing search for more cash.
If they try it, even more people will see them for what they are
-
My view. The UK has a long and not entirely honourable reputation as a libel tourism destination. Largely because of the nature of the libel laws and the effective need to "prove ones innocence".
So no doubt they could. The problem is that as Amaral has (I assume) no assets in the UK, it would be difficult actually to enforce judgement and get the money.
So I suggest the prospect is very unlikely.
-
On what basis could they sue Amaral? He didn't publish in the UK.
-
On what basis could they sue Amaral? He didn't publish in the UK.
But it is enough that it was viewable on the internet by UK citizens.........or so I am led to believe by gilet.
-
But it is enough that it was viewable on the internet by UK citizens.........or so I am led to believe by gilet.
I suppose if someone found it through Google they could try suing Google... 8-)(--)
-
But it is enough that it was viewable on the internet by UK citizens.........or so I am led to believe by gilet.
probably just indulging in her equivalent of a wet dream.
-
Pointless, in my opinion.
If Amaral loses, which I believe he will, then he will have been discredited for all time. And if he doesn't lose, which is not the same as winning, unless he can get some idiot to publish his book in English, in Britain, then he won't technically have libelled them in Britain.
However, if the Repeated Libel carries on to any great degree then other people could well be sued, or at least charged under the Telecommunications Act.
-
Pointless, in my opinion.
If Amaral loses, which I believe he will, then he will have been discredited for all time. And if he doesn't lose, which is not the same as winning, unless he can get some idiot to publish his book in English, in Britain, then he won't technically have libelled them in Britain.
However, if the Repeated Libel carries on to any great degree then other people could well be sued, or at least charged under the Telecommunications Act.
Too late.
The book is already freely available on the net.
-
Too late.
The book is already freely available on the net.
I bet that pleased Amaral and his Publishers. But what is happening now is not the same as what could occur later.
If Amaral loses, then I bet this Forum will have a rethink.
-
I bet that pleased Amaral and his Publishers. But what is happening now is not the same as what could occur later.
If Amaral loses, then I bet this Forum will have a rethink.
Let's await the verdict and the appeals.
..and this forum is not the internet, where it will always bee available.
-
Let's await the verdict and the appeals.
..and this forum is not the internet, where it will always bee available.
You mean you might go somewhere else?
-
Let's await the verdict and the appeals.
..and this forum is not the internet, where it will always bee available.
i wont ever change my mind about what i think about the mcanns the media do not influence my opinion i have my own
-
i wont ever change my mind about what i think about the mcanns the media do not influence my opinion i have my own
You were still declaring Lindy Chamberlaine Guilty some thirty years after she was totally exonerated, so your attitude does not surprise me at all.
-
Eleanor opines in her usual fashion " And if he ( Amaral ) doesn't lose, which is not the same as winning,".
Comedy gold !
-
Eleanor opines in her usual fashion " And if he ( Amaral ) doesn't lose, which is not the same as winning,".
Comedy gold !
It tickled me too 8)-)))
Did anyone see the BBC news on Monday when John Kay held a copy of Dr Amarals book up to camera, described it's contents and referred to it as a best seller in Portugal?
-
It tickled me too 8)-)))
Did anyone see the BBC news on Monday when John Kay held a copy of Dr Amarals book up to camera, described it's contents and referred to it as a best seller in Portugal?
But that cannot be. We have been told otherwise by he who knows everything.
-
Eleanor opines in her usual fashion " And if he ( Amaral ) doesn't lose, which is not the same as winning,".
Comedy gold !
If Amaral doesn't lose this Libel Trial it does not mean that The McCanns are Guilty. So you can forget the arrests on The Court steps.
Amaral's hypothesis will still be just that. And the right to libel anyone in Portugal will be a fact.
-
If Amaral doesn't lose this Libel Trial it does not mean that The McCanns are Guilty. So you can forget the arrests on The Court steps.
Amaral's hypothesis will still be just that. And the right to libel anyone in Portugal will be a fact.
You have some strange ideas.
-
You have some strange ideas.
Oh, you think The McCanns will be deemed guilty? Other than in your mind, that is.
Forget it. The fat lady sang on that one a long time ago.
-
Oh, you think The McCanns will be deemed guilty? Other than in your mind, that is.
Forget it. The fat lady sang on that one a long time ago.
A verdict against the McCanns does not mean that they will be deemed guilty, it will only mean that they failed to present their case that they had suffered from the publication of the book. Nothing more nothing less. Nor does a verdict in their favour deem them to be innocent.
-
A verdict against the McCanns does not mean that they will be deemed guilty, it will only mean that they failed to present their case that they had suffered from the publication of the book. Nothing more nothing less. Nor does a verdict in their favour deem them to be innocent.
Thank you for being honest about that.
-
Oh, you think The McCanns will be deemed guilty? Other than in your mind, that is.
Forget it. The fat lady sang on that one a long time ago.
You were the one proposing that....
-
Yes! and the bit where he explained what "Amaral's Thesis" is.
Seems like the beeb are breaking ranks under the amendments to our libel laws.
I was really surprised by it! I don't suppose that many people outside of us nutters in forum land had a clue about it before. I saw it at around half five on news 24, but a friend of mine said he'd seen it on the six o'clock news.
That's quite an audience!
-
I bet that pleased Amaral and his Publishers. But what is happening now is not the same as what could occur later.
If Amaral loses, then I bet this Forum will have a rethink.
A rethink about what? Can we change the evidence? NO
Gonçalo has got his message out to a very large audience and in doing so has ensured that many more people worldwide are aware of Madeleine and her disappearance. Far from hindering the search, he has brought her plight to an extremely large audience.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/truthofthelieholland.jpg)
-
The parents have NOT been cleared of their daughters disappearance- they are complicit at least in her eventual fate-what ever that was /is. i.e if they had been with her their claims of abduction would not have happened.
I was shocked about this libel trial-even more so when the book was banned. What evidence did they have that the contents of the book made Maddie suffer more? How did they know about her suffering? and how did it hinder the search. Who specifically, Did it stop 'looking' for their daughter- where were people to look for her ? New Zealand? Singapore?China? The Oprah Winfrey show?
They had no evidence that people stopped looking solely because of the contents of the book.
and they have no evidence that Maddie suffered as a consequence of the contents in that book... OR do they?
...and would it be more harmful to Maddie's well being, the contents of that book than say- being 'abducted' tortured, raped. murdered?
Those parents just don't get it!
They would not be allowed to take out a libel trial in the UK, it would not be deemed an appropriate use of court time. The pursuer has to present ACTUAL evidence.
-
A rethink about what? Can we change the evidence? NO
Gonçalo has got his message out to a very large audience and in doing so has ensured that many more people worldwide are aware of Madeleine and her disappearance. Far from hindering the search, he has brought her plight to an extremely large audience.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/truthofthelieholland.jpg)
He has brought her "plight" to a wider audience? Or his assertion that she's dead and that her parents have covered it up?
How is that intended to help find her?
-
The parents have NOT been cleared of their daughters disappearance- they are complicit at least in her eventual fate-what ever that was /is. i.e if they had been with her their claims of abduction would not have happened.
I was shocked about this libel trial-even more so when the book was banned. What evidence did they have that the contents of the book made Maddie suffer more? How did they know about her suffering? and how did it hinder the search. Who specifically, Did it stop 'looking' for their daughter- where were people to look for her ? New Zealand? Singapore?China? The Oprah Winfrey show?
They had no evidence that people stopped looking solely because of the contents of the book.
and they have no evidence that Maddie suffered as a consequence of the contents in that book... OR do they?
...and would it be more harmful to Maddie's well being, the contents of that book than say- being 'abducted' tortured, raped. murdered?
Those parents just don't get it!
They would not be allowed to take out a libel trial in the UK, it would not be deemed an appropriate use of court time. The pursuer has to present ACTUAL evidence.
[/b]
The content of the book IS the actual evidence. Unless it has been grossly mis-translated then it is littered with lies, half-truths, wild distortions and ill-concealed nasty innuendo. Hiding the fact from his readers that he never met or spoke to Kate in his life, and only once briefly met Gerry being his most dishonest action of all IMO. The McCanns would win a libel case against him in the UK hands down IMO.
However if the McCanns do win their case in Portugal - then even if they are not awarded any damages - I think they wouild be more than content with that verdict and would prefer to move on and have no more dealings with this corrupt ex policeman. IMO
-
[/b]
The content of the book IS the actual evidence. Unless it has been grossly mis-translated then it is littered with lies, half-truths, wild distortions and ill-concealed nasty innuendo. Hiding the fact from his readers that he never met or spoke to Kate in his life, and only once briefly met Gerry being his most dishonest action of all IMO. The McCanns would win a libel case against him in the UK hands down IMO.
However if the McCanns do win their case in Portugal - then even if they are not awarded any damages - I think they wouild be more than content with that verdict and would prefer to move on and have no more dealings with this corrupt ex policeman. IMO
How was he 'corrupt' in this case benice ?
-
Some people just do not like to lose an argument-but rather than be mature about it they start name calling. I will not be drawn to that level, therefore any abuse directed at me or about me will always be reported.
Back on topic:
The evidence would have been to show that Team Mc had a viable claim to make Mr Amaral withdraw or be forced to withdraw his book from the public as it harmed the search for their daughter, also they wanted Million of Euros as compensation for their alleged suffering, including little Maddie, (which I have mentioned before, NO ONE KNOWS if she did or has suffered from the contents of the book.
And I would further add, that Team MC have already stated on Many occasion,"there is no evidence that Maddie has come to any harm"
For those who missed by seeing red mist: Gerry McCann:"there is no evidence that Maddie has come to any harm"
Now, regardless of that; how do they know she suffered from the book contents and not the "being snatched form her bed by sex crazed paedophiles, raped tortured and left lying to die alone?
Hm anyone? they know, they said they know- well show us how you know-evidence.
This case at present is NOT about libe,l it is about money-compensation for harm caused.
With regards to the contents of the book. Mr Amaral was an investigative police officer, He suspected the mccanns were not telling the truth-I agree with him on that matter.
He wrote about the the investigation, and his THESIS- nothing wrong with that. Clever people do know what a Thesis is.
Note: parents kill their children- shocking I know, so lets not pretend that parents, no matter how they protest, can still be guilty.
I have never said what I believed happened to little Maddie. I do not make wild accusations.
I may not agree with Mr Amarals' book, But I defend his rights to write it.
You would think they would be more upset with the paedophiles than a book! BUT well...
-
quote "harm caused by what?" unquote
Exactly! either she was harmed or she wasn't- how would they know?
They claim their was 'no evidence'-suggesting she was not harmed by her disappearance, but then make a claim for her suffering by the contents of a book? without providing evidence(?)
I mean really? That is a different level of silliness to grasp!
The very fact that a little girl has disappeared, what evidence would you need to prove she didn't come to 'harm'.
My guess is: she would most certainly be harmed if she was' snatched from her bed by a stranger'-the psychological impact on a 3 year old girl would be unmeasurable!
not harmed indeed!
Can you name the names of the people who stopped looking for Maddie-that could be a start... Alphabetically..America...Because that is what kind of evidence a UK court would be looking for in a libel court!, who stopped looking and why.
No, I wasn't asking about harm caused to the child, I was referring to your statement that the current court action was about compensation for harm caused. Caused by what?
-
The McCanns are claiming for 'suffering' for themselves and 'children' due to the contents of the book-the search being harmed as a result of the said contents.
The contents being about a police investigation...
Am I missing something?
-
The McCanns are claiming for 'suffering' for themselves and 'children' due to the contents of the book-the search being harmed as a result of the said contents.
The contents being about a police investigation...
Am I missing something?
Yes, I think so - why is the book harmful, in the McCanns' opinion? What is it about the book that they object to?
-
They are objecting to Mr Amaral claiming in his book that he believes Madeleine is dead. They say this has caused people to stop looking for her.
-
The book has brought sleepless nights to Amaral too.
Every time there is a little chance she is alive and was possibly seen somewhere he must have had sleepless nights.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
The book has brought sleepless nights to Amaral too.
Every time there is a little chance she is alive and was possibly seen somewhere he must have had sleepless nights.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Is she alive in the little place 10 miles from PDL, identified by Mr. Edgar ?
-
The McCanns are claiming for 'suffering' for themselves and 'children' due to the contents of the book-the search being harmed as a result of the said contents.
The contents being about a police investigation...
Am I missing something?
you are missing just about everything...the police report...archiving report...said that there was no evidence against the mccanns wheras amaral has accused them of covering up her death...completely different. But dont take my word for it teh judge will give her verdict...this year hopefully..and amaral will be totally humiliated
-
you are missing just about everything...the police report...archiving report...said that there was no evidence against the mccanns wheras amaral has accused them of covering up her death...completely different. But dont take my word for it teh judge will give her verdict...this year hopefully..and amaral will be totally humiliated
No dave, there was insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution.
Why do you try to twist the report ?
and why didn't the mccanns fully cooperate with the original investigation ?
Please don't say they did, because they didn't. 8()(((@#
-
A rethink about what? Can we change the evidence? NO
Gonçalo has got his message out to a very large audience and in doing so has ensured that many more people worldwide are aware of Madeleine and her disappearance. Far from hindering the search, he has brought her plight to an extremely large audience.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/truthofthelieholland.jpg)
Disingenuous.
People who believe Amaral's book also believe Madeleine is dead.
That, in turn, hinders the search for Madeleine.
-
No dave, there was insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution.
Why do you try to twist the report ?
and why didn't the mccanns fully cooperate with the original investigation ?
Please don't say they did, because they didn't. 8()(((@#
the report says no evidence
-
the report says no evidence
It does.
And what a difference a word makes
Demonstrate, not prove.
Scotland Yard demonstrated the McCanns' innocence by shifting the time-line.
-
They are objecting to Mr Amaral claiming in his book that he believes Madeleine is dead. They say this has caused people to stop looking for her.
Yes, that's true - but on what basis can damages be brought? There is not a Portuguese Law against Amaral making claims, so on what basis specifically woul damages be awarded? What is the transgression committed by Amaral, if damages are awarded to the McCanns?
-
Yes, that's true - but on what basis can damages be brought? There is not a Portuguese Law against Amaral making claims, so on what basis specifically woul damages be awarded? What is the transgression committed by Amaral, if damages are awarded to the McCanns?
no one here understands the intricacies of Portuguese law. One Portuguese poster has claimed its not even alibel trial so its a waste of time listening to what other posters say. What we do know is that amarals witnesses have been trying to prove that his claims are legitimite and true to the police investigation...the mccanns have ben showing how they have been hurt by his calims. That tells us where the burden of proof lies..despite what others have said.
We also know that amaral is running scared...put all those things together and you have a pretty accurate idea of the true facts in the libel trial
-
How do we know this with any degree of certainty? What evidence is there to suggest anything other than Dr Amaral is "playing the game"?
What game would that be....
You do understand the postion amaral is in...the evidence suggests hes down and out and palying his last throw of the dice
-
The McCanns did not cooperate with the police investigation-indeed they were very reluctant to show any enthusiasm to conduct themselves in a manner which could be construed as 'helpful' even.
The mother was asked. do you know that by not answering these questions it may harm the search for your daughter.
"YES"... she answered.
She knew. she knew it would, but she went ahead and withdrew her support to help find her daughter.
one of the last persons to see her alive-withdrew her support, her own mother.
The rest of the group, who could have help establish a time line, all gave shocking 'erring' and 'umming' statements... and they denied the police access to establish who was 'where and when' on that evening by refusing to do a reconstruction.
disgraceful behavior and yet they project all of their hatred towards a police officer.
It wouldn't get to court in this country-however Mr Amaral would have a case against the Team Mc- to sue them and most newspapers! IMO
-
The McCanns did not cooperate with the police investigation-indeed they were very reluctant to show any enthusiasm to conduct themselves in a manner which could be construed as 'helpful' even.
The mother was asked. do you know that by not answering these questions it may harm the search for your daughter.
"YES"... she answered.
She knew. she knew it would, but she went ahead and withdrew her support to help find her daughter.
one of the last persons to see her alive-withdrew her support, her own mother.
The rest of the group, who could have help establish a time line, all gave shocking 'erring' and 'umming' statements... and they denied the police access to establish who was 'where and when' on that evening by refusing to do a reconstruction.
disgraceful behavior and yet they project all of their hatred towards a police officer.
It wouldn't get to court in this country-however Mr Amaral would have a case against the Team Mc- to sue them and most newspapers! IMO
You do realise both Kate and Gerry answered hours of questions...amaral has no case against the mccanns in the uk...nor against any press...anything that has been printed about him is true....he is disgraced, he has acriminal record and the original investigation was bungled....
-
Red bit: don't be obtuse when you don't have to be! The legal game of course. Look at it a giant game of cards; all parties are entitled to play their card according to the rules to their own advantage. I happens many times and is not unusual.
Purple bit. Like I said what evidence? The judge stopped taking evidence in November 2013 so what has changed since then?
im not being obtuse...so amaral is playing the legal game you think...wouldn't it be better just to trounce the mccanns if that were possible....it isn't...the evidence we have seen from the trial and from amarals behaviour..his interview with the Norwegian magazine all point to the fact that he has lost..hes down and out
-
And there was me thinking that Court Cases are serious business. But what Amaral did had already been predicted. We just didn't think he would sack another Lawyer.
-
And there was me thinking that Court Cases are serious business. But what Amaral did had already been predicted. We just didn't think he would sack another Lawyer.
I'm really looking forward to seeing his next move...
-
Kate refused to answer 48 questions at the police station.
Kate refused to answer 48 questions at the police station.
EXCEPT THIS ONE:
The mother was asked. do you know that by not answering these questions it may harm the search for your daughter.
"YES"... she answered.
Huh?...her mother who was leaving no stone unturned...
-
Kate refused to answer 48 questions at the police station.
Kate refused to answer 48 questions at the police station.
EXCEPT THIS ONE:
The mother was asked. do you know that by not answering these questions it may harm the search for your daughter.
"YES"... she answered.
Huh?...her mother who was leaving no stone unturned...
Precisely the point.
her beloved daughter, after all.
-
Well this case has always enjoyed grandstanding on court steps by one party or another. My belief is that both parties would have been better off not grandstanding but it's their money and their choice.
To the point of tedium what evidence. The trial had the McCann's witnesses giving anecdotal tales of hearsay and Wright reading from notes which the judge pointed out was not admissible and she could ignore it as a consequence if she so wished. Sra Duarte dropped off resulting in Mrs Healey being ineligible and Trisha Cameron was cut short by the judge and told she could go home. Dr Amaral for his part had some strange witnesses one of whom had the judge answer the question for him. The judge made it plain it was her job to compare the book with the PJ files and no one elses.
From what went on do you seriously believe it is an open and shut case in favour of the McCanns? Then IF the McCanns are successful it will be judge who decides the level of damages. I wouldn't put a brass farthing on it either way.
We have been told that much of the evidence has been submitted to the judge in private. From amarals witnesses it looks as though HE has to prove his comments are justified and supported by evidence..we know he will not be able to do this...all the evidence he believed.. the dna and the dogs has been discredited...amarals whole demeanor is one of a beaten man...you believe what you want...I think its obvious amaral has lost
-
I'm really looking forward to seeing his next move...
Me too. Perhaps we should have a Thread about that. "What will Amaral do next."
I'll start it if anyone wants.
-
It won't happen because Mr Amaral does his work in Portugal, so anything linked to a 'crime' or civil law takes place in the country where it happened e.g. English news papers print lie-sue in England, Mr A writes book in Portugal, sue in Portugal. Even in parts of this country you sue where the crime happens i.e. I get burgled by someone from London, Sheffield would be the place the investigation takes place. My brother in law got killed on the A1, It was nearest to Leeds, so that's where the coroners court took place.
-
Then why did the McCanns make a big wing ding about having the trial in open court when Dr Amaral wanted it in camera?
Basically what you are saying is Dr Amaral has lost because you say so or you would like to think so.
no Im saying amaral has lost based on what we have seen happening..perhaps Im just a lot better at assessing evidence than you and others are.....I am confident i will be proved right
-
We have been told that much of the evidence has been submitted to the judge in private. From amarals witnesses it looks as though snip
...followed by Davel's suppositions.
-
We have now gone full circle. I asked you quantify the evidence and you have so far failed to do so. Bluster and blether and the world is divided in two; you and the idiots.
So where is this evidence you are so adept at assimilating?
Just state it; no bother for you surely?
I have quantified the evidence...its all there in previous posts..witness statements from trials..amarals actions...amarals interview..........posters on here are ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit there mindset..
Why did amaral sack his lawyer...because his lawyer is doing such a great job and amaral is miles ahead in the trial...or because everything is slipping away....remember all amarals assets are frozen...if he has such a strong case why isn't he in court getting his money back..its obvious amaral is toast
-
I have quantified the evidence...its all there in previous posts..witness statements from trials..amarals actions...amarals interview..........posters on here are ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit there mindset..
Why did amaral sack his lawyer...because his lawyer is doing such a great job and amaral is miles ahead in the trial...or because everything is slipping away....remember all amarals assets are frozen...if he has such a strong case why isn't he in court getting his money back..its obvious amaral is toast
Wait for the judges verdict. 8((()*/
-
Wait for the judges verdict. 8((()*/
I don't have to wait for any verdict because I can assess the evidence
-
This Forum is going to be so much fun when Amaral loses.
-
This Forum is going to be so much fun when Amaral loses.
Fun ???
Let's see the verdict.
No matter what the verdict is, it won't solve the case.
HJOWEVER, AS MORE PEOPLE ARE SEEING, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE MCCANNS WANTING MONEY.
-
Fun ???
Let's see the verdict.
No matter what the verdict is, it won't solve the case.
HJOWEVER, AS MORE PEOPLE ARE SEEING, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE MCCANNS WANTING MONEY.
getting angry and frustrated with your capital letters...yes its going to be so much fun when the verdict is announced ..it will be fun to see amaral humiliated and fun to see what pathetic excuses posters come up with to explain the verdict...Im so looking forward to it
-
This case is about Madeleine and the obscene profit Amaral made from his scurrilous book.
-
Why did Dr Amaral sack his brief? You would need to ask either of the parties involved or make a gross assumption.
As regards quantifying the evidence you have done nothing of the kind. You have merely repeated ad nauseam that in your opinion Dr Amaral is toast whatever that may mean. The rest is you repeating that you have looked at the evidence (even the stuff you reckon was handed over to the judge in her chambers?) and because you are so much smarter than the average bear poster you can see what the judge is yet to decide following the summing up on July 8th/10th 2014?
Well scroat me gently with a knotted advocate.
perhaps I'm wrong in thinking you are smarter than the company you keep on here.....I can spot a loser a mile off...amaral is a loser and the evidence for that statement is there for all to see...sacking his lawyer and delaying the trial is certainly one piece
-
So could Phil Spector or so he claimed but he was not smart enough to see what was coming round the corner at him.
Still no evidence detailed yet then as to why Dr Amaral has undoubtedly lost?
Just keep chanting the same thing.
He may have fired his lawyer because he was not pushing for him to "take the stand" and was to be reliant on "law" for his summing up rather than Sra Duarte who is going to present facts the judge already knows in her summing up.
Or he could have simply been playing an up and under to make the opposition sweat a bit.
Who knows; Oh dear I am silly Billy you know of course.
How about this for a paradox.
McCann supporters on this forum reckon the Portuguese judiciary is as bent as a dockers hook but in the same breath they are convinced Dr Amaral will lose the case. How does that reconcile then?
Ive posted my reasons for my belief that amaral has lost several times on this thread..you ask more questions now but as you have shown whatever the brilliance of the explanation you will simply plead dumb and pretend that no evidence has been given...its "PLAYING THE GAME"...
-
You have not offered one shred of evidence. All you have done is give your speculative opinions as proof Amaral has lost.
Stop blethering and cite the evidence, and the "its all in the posts" will not wash because it isn't in the posts, or admit there is none and that it is all only in your humble opinion.
you haven't got a clue what the word evidence means...
-
Standard Davel reply when cornered. Are you sure you do not wish to insert the words fool and silly as well?
If Dr Amaral has lost as you assert then you need to provide corroborative evidence that the judge believes that the information in Dr Amarals book is at significant variance with the detail that was in the PJ files which entered the public domain prior to the book being published and that somehow the contents of the book impeded the closed official search for the child. As the judge has yet to rule, and she makes it quite clear it is her job alone to compare the two, anything you say is merely your opinion based on an incomplete knowledge as according to you a lot of evidence has been given in private which you can have no knowledge of.
You have no points on the graph but already are asserting it is a graph of y = x2.
As I have stated many times on this thread..my opinion is based on certain facts....any fact that supports an argument is deemed evidence...
amaral sacked his lawyer....amaral gave an interview in a Norwegian magazine which was very downbeat......amarals legal team have delayed the trial on several occasions...you may think it is weak evidence...that's your opinion..but it is evidence... so to say I have no evidence is wrong.....
-
Is there any truth in the rumour that people who contribute to a Defence Fund in a Libel Trial can later be called upon to pay towards The Damages if there is a short fall?
-
Is there any truth in the rumour that people who contribute to a Defence Fund in a Libel Trial can later be called upon to pay towards The Damages if there is a short fall?
I should think that's just a forum myth put about by those of your persuasion
-
I should think that's just a forum myth put about by those of your persuasion
Anything and everything to attack Amaral, even though his views were shared by others.
Now a question for the mccanns supporters, why NO MENTION OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ?
-
Anything and everything to attack Amaral, even though his views were shared by others.
Now a question for the mccanns supporters, why NO MENTION OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ?
none of the other defendants have said anything against the mccanns
-
none of the other defendants have said anything against the mccanns
Really, but they are defendants.
So why are they defendants dave ?
-
The Team Mc were suing everyone involved in the publishing-distribution-discussing,making documentaries based on the contents of the book- which was based on the police investigation report.
IN PORTUGAL Where the McCanns are merely visitors!
Yesssssssss It was one of them conspiracies things. They were all in on it. haha!
And who the hell are the Team Mcs to stomp into a country and demand people have freedoms of speech denied-basic human right that is! Article 8
Oh when Gerry ruled the world...
-
The Team Mc were suing everyone involved in the publishing-distribution-discussing,making documentaries based on the contents of the book- which was based on the police investigation report.
IN PORTUGAL Where the McCanns are merely visitors!
Yesssssssss It was one of them conspiracies things. They were all in on it. haha!
And who the hell are the Team Mcs to stomp into a country and demand people have freedoms of speech denied-basic human right that is! Article 8
Oh when Gerry ruled the world...
its the court who decides not the mccanns
-
This is not a criminal trial... This was initiated by Team Mcs. It woke the Portuguese up!
The court already decided to remove the ban... Win for Justice don't you think?
-
The Portuguese people are being woken up, alright. And I bet they are all a bit shocked by the disgraceful behaviour of a PJ Officer who is definitely not a gentleman.
-
This is not a criminal trial... This was initiated by Team Mcs. It woke the Portuguese up!
The court already decided to remove the ban... Win for Justice don't you think?
Since the Supreme Court in its wisdom chose to overturn the book ban, that by definition would appear to be a sign that they were unable to hold that defamation occurred. Not surprising however as I have always said that neither side can prove what happened at the moment and so the question of defamation cannot be settled one way or the other.
Which brings me to the libel trial itself or the compensation trial as some would have it. In order to seek compensation there has to be a proven loss or damage. The McCanns, according to the evidence of their witnesses, are seeking damages based on the harm done to them by the publication of Amaral's book and DVD. Again, this is dependent on the outcome of the investigation, consequently, I cannot see how any judge can rule other than deny the claim until such time as Madeleine's fate is known and those responsible brought to account.
-
Supposing the McCanns are awarded damages
Will that mean that Amaral's book will be deemed libelous and it will have to be withdrawn from sale ?
Or will it just mean that the book caused damage to the McCannswhether it was libelous or not, and the book will remain on sale ?
Anyone know ?
-
Supposing the McCanns are awarded damages
Will that mean that Amaral's book will be deemed libelous and it will have to be withdrawn from sale ?
Or will it just mean that the book caused damage to the McCannswhether it was libelous or not, and the book will remain on sale ?
Anyone know ?
I can't see how a judge in a lower Court can make any decision which would be counter to that of the Supreme Court. In fact, doing so would invoke an automatic appeal and Gonçalo knows it. If damages are awarded I wouldn't expect them to be punitive.
-
A small correction
if it is decided to be libellous then the mccanns will be liable entitled to damages
-
Supposing the McCanns are awarded damages
Will that mean that Amaral's book will be deemed libelous and it will have to be withdrawn from sale ?
Or will it just mean that the book caused damage to the McCannswhether it was libelous or not, and the book will remain on sale ?
Anyone know ?
You've got this arse about face. The book will not be deemed libellous BECAUSE the McCanns are awarded damages. The McCanns will be awarded damages because the book will be deemed libellous. The harm caused by the book is as a result of its libellous accusations.
-
If the book is deemed to be not libellious, would Mr Amaral be entitled to have his legal costs paid?
-
I don't think you have any understanding of whats going on john..the unbanning of the book has nothing to do whether it was libellous or not....the book is allowed to be sold under the laws of free speech..whether it is libellous or not has not yet been decided...if it is decided to be libellous then the mccanns will be liable to damages...the fact that all amarals assets have been frozen suggests the damages will be punitive
The overturning of the book ban was not just based on the laws of freedom of speech and opinion but also on the fact that the book was based on the police files and that the opinion of a policeman with 25 odd years of experience was just as valid as that of anyone else, including the opinion in the archiving report. If you read the "acordão", the judges stated that the McCanns human rights were not maligned, especially since they were the ones who sought media coverage themselves.
The McCanns are mostly annoyed about this case because they were convinced, especially after having Gonçalo Amaral's assets frozen, that the defendents would seek an out of court settlement. This is what happened with the English newspapers and they were convinced that this would happen here, too.
-
You are quite right Montclair, Team Mcs would have been banking on an out of court settlement!
Here in the UK the civil law is quite clear They have to evidence that Amaral set out to Libel them.
Also, Amaral cannot be forced to attend court and the UK civil (not criminal) courts have no jurisdiction over his personal finances etc.
The UK court would only accept medical evidence by a Qualified recognized Health Professional at that time of their 'suffering'. And as I have demonstrated before-They cannot quantify little Maddies 'suffering' as they claim they do not know of her where a bouts.
If Team Mcs lost they would have to pay ALL costs and the plaintiffs costs also.
And they can be asked to take the stand to be questioned by Amaral and /or his legal team.
... incriminate themselves... they would have to answer ALL them questions!
That is a no go. they wouldn't get away with that show stopper over here!
-
No British Publisher in his right mind would have agreed to publish that book in the first place. And no Television Company would have agreed to broadcast that video or have Amaral sitting on their couch. And nor did Oprah Winfrey, even though Amaral offered.
But it isn't The UK that we are talking about.
I have no real idea what The Judge will decide, but it is looking promising in favour of The McCanns, as far as I can see.
Punitive Damages? Who really cares? It's the verdict that matters. And Freedom of Speech in Portugal isn't quite so Free as some would like to think.
-
No British Publisher in his right mind would have agreed to publish that book in the first place. And no Television Company would have agreed to broadcast that video or have Amaral sitting on their couch. And nor did Oprah Winfrey, even though Amaral offered.
But it isn't The UK that we are talking about.
I have no real idea what The Judge will decide, but it is looking promising in favour of The McCanns, as far as I can see.
Punitive Damages? Who really cares? It's the verdict that matters. And Freedom of Speech in Portugal isn't quite so Free as some would like to think.
...but libel is very, very hard to prove in Portugal, especially as in this case, it remains 'type of crime unknown'.
Innit.
-
...but libel is very, very hard to prove in Portugal, especially as in this case, it remains 'type of crime unknown'.
Innit.
I think that's the whole point, Stephen. Amaral says that he knows what happened when clearly he doesn't.
-
The overturning of the book ban was not just based on the laws of freedom of speech and opinion but also on the fact that the book was based on the police files and that the opinion of a policeman with 25 odd years of experience was just as valid as that of anyone else, including the opinion in the archiving report. If you read the "acordão", the judges stated that the McCanns human rights were not maligned, especially since they were the ones who sought media coverage themselves.
The McCanns are mostly annoyed about this case because they were convinced, especially after having Gonçalo Amaral's assets frozen, that the defendents would seek an out of court settlement. This is what happened with the English newspapers and they were convinced that this would happen here, too.
I completely agree and what's more should the current libel case be thrown out as I wholly expect it to be then Amaral will have a very strong case for seeking damages in a Portuguese Court.
-
I completely agree and what's more should the current libel case be thrown out as I wholly expect it to be then Amaral will have a very strong case for seeking damages in a Portuguese Court.
Your expectation that the libel case will be thrown out shows your judgement and reasoning are seriously flawed. having followed the transcripts of the trial on here and interviews with amaral I see him as a beaten man heading for total humiliation
-
Your expectation that the libel case will be thrown out shows your judgement and reasoning are seriously flawed. having followed the transcripts of the trial on here and interviews with amaral I see him as a beaten man heading for total humiliation
Let's wait for the result of the libel trial.
-
Let's wait for the result of the libel trial.
you can wait but as long as the whole board is full of opinion I don't see why I should not give mine
-
you can wait but as long as the whole board is full of opinion I don't see why I should not give mine
You can give what opinions you wish, but it won't change the outcome of the trial and subsequent verdict, and it won't make other people believe you with your ongoing tirades.
-
I completely agree and what's more should the current libel case be thrown out as I wholly expect it to be then Amaral will have a very strong case for seeking damages in a Portuguese Court.
as the mccanns have no assets in Portugal...how would this work
-
What has happened regarding the appointment of Dr Amaral's new lawyer? I have probably missed it. Does anyone know who it is.
-
What has happened regarding the appointment of Dr Amaral's new lawyer? I have probably missed it. Does anyone know who it is.
Already done. 8((()*/
-
Already done. 8((()*/
OK. Do you know who it is ... or is it a secret?
-
OK. Do you know who it is ... or is it a secret?
It's on the net, I've been told.
-
as the mccanns have no assets in Portugal...how would this work
Under EU Laws, a judgement made in Portugal can be enforced in the UK. The days of hiding behind foreign residency laws have well and truly gone under the EU.
-
What news of Amaral's efforts to find another lawyer?
Any?
-
I've just read upstream of the thread ...
-
It's on the net, I've been told.
Hear say then >@@(*&)
-
As is almost everything. Even stuff in papers and on TV can be edited out of all recognition.
-
No official report on the lawyer situation yet...will be interesting to see what happens next
-
No official report on the lawyer situation yet...will be interesting to see what happens next
Not much time left >@@(*&)
-
Not much time left >@@(*&)
he normally leaves things to the last minute...probably hoping for another adjournment
-
he normally leaves things to the last minute...probably hoping for another adjournment
Gonçalo Amaral is not obliged to give you information about which lawyer he has hired.
-
Likely the court will know by now, which is the important thing.
-
Likely the court will know by now, which is the important thing.
we'll see 8((()*/
-
Indeed we shall.
-
Gonçalo Amaral is not obliged to give you information about which lawyer he has hired.
Equally, he is not obliged to keep his supporters up to date with developments.
But he does.
-
Likely the court will know by now, which is the important thing.
This whole saga seems to be a sequence of deadlines for something to happen, with the expiry of one deadline hotly pursued by the inception of another deadline for something else to happen; and (usually) no clear indication of whether the deadline for the previous occurrence was actually met or not.
It's all very confusing ...
-
"At the end of all this (a lot of water is still going to flow in the Thames river...) someone will reimburse me for all the wicked actions taken against me... Then, I will tell the rest”, said in a single burst Gonçalo Amaral.
26 February 2012
www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/02/police-cases-truth-of-lie-is-on-its-way.html
-
No idea, Brietta. Oliveira seems to be quite a hot-shot lawyer, so firing him doesn't seem to make much sense at the moment.
- Incompetence? That seems unlikely.
- A clash over how to proceed? A personality clash? That also seems unlikely at what should have been the end of the trial.
- Stalling? If so, what for?
him at the last minute
perhaps the lawyer told amaral he had no chance of winning and not to prolong the case incurring more legal fees
-
perhaps the lawyer told amaral he had no chance of winning and not to prolong the case incurring more legal fees
That sounds more like it davel.
-
I think its simple logic that if you are winning you don't sack your lawyer...amaral is at his wits end and is looking for a miracle...and hopes a new lawyer may come up with something new..desperate times
-
I think its simple logic that if you are winning you don't sack your lawyer...amaral is at his wits end and is looking for a miracle...and hopes a new lawyer may come up with something new..desperate times
The ironic bit is that SY could pull the bunny out of the hat for him yet if they do find something in PdL.
-
The ironic bit is that SY could pull the bunny out of the hat for him yet if they do find something in PdL.
I don't think they'll be doing that anytime soon, if ever.
-
I think its simple logic that if you are winning you don't sack your lawyer...amaral is at his wits end and is looking for a miracle...and hopes a new lawyer may come up with something new..desperate times
I've no idea how this case will go. The legal system is so different that he (and the other defendants) could actually win. On the other hand, he can't be that confident, otherwise why sack his lawyer at the last minute?
-
The ironic bit is that SY could pull the bunny out of the hat for him yet if they do find something in PdL.
Well, I was wondering about that as well. Is he stalling in the hope that a body would be found? That she would automatically be declared dead after seven years?
-
Well, I was wondering about that as well. Is he stalling in the hope that a body would be found? That she would automatically be declared dead after seven years?
How would that help him? Finding a body does not equal "The McCanns dunnit".
-
How would that help him? Finding a body does not equal "The McCanns dunnit".
No, but I suppose if it could be demonstrated that she died in 2007, then he couldn't be accused of hindering the search for a live Madeleine.
-
How would that help him? Finding a body does not equal "The McCanns dunnit".
It would put an end to the fund, once and for all.
-
No, but I suppose if it could be demonstrated that she died in 2007, then he couldn't be accused of hindering the search for a live Madeleine.
Hmm, not sure about that. No one knew at the time the book was written and published if Madeleine were alive or dead, and therefore prior to any confirmation of her death she would surely have had the right to be considered a live and findable child. Amaral compromised that right IMO.
-
Hmm, not sure about that. No one knew at the time the book was written and published if Madeleine were alive or dead, and therefore prior to any confirmation of her death she would surely have had the right to be considered a live and findable child. Amaral compromised that right IMO.
No, complete rubbish.
People made their mind up for themselves and they didn't need the 'case coordinator' to tell them either.
Try to comprehend, that many people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction.
it doesn't add up, and there's nae evidence for it either.
-
Hmm, not sure about that. No one knew at the time the book was written and published if Madeleine were alive or dead, and therefore prior to any confirmation of her death she would surely have had the right to be considered a live and findable child. Amaral compromised that right IMO.
I'm not sure either, but if already dead, no amount of searching would produce a live child, so how could it be hindered?
-
The ironic bit is that SY could pull the bunny out of the hat for him yet if they do find something in PdL.
only if there is something to find...perhaps this is what he is still hoping...my take is that SY will find nothing to incriminate the mccanns because they were not involved
-
"At the end of all this (a lot of water is still going to flow in the Thames river...) someone will reimburse me for all the wicked actions taken against me... Then, I will tell the rest”, said in a single burst Gonçalo Amaral.
26 February 2012
www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/02/police-cases-truth-of-lie-is-on-its-way.html
Interesting statement, “Then I will tell the rest”.
It suggests to me that the story he has to tell does not concern the Drs McCann.
If he had anything worthwhile to implicate them he would already have spilled it either when he was still active in the PJ, thus solving the case; or he would have included a chapter in his book; or he might even have imparted it to his successors.
Perhaps those who pore over every cough of the Drs McCann should turn their analytical skills to Dr Amaral’s statement and work out what he meant and tell the rest of us.
-
I'm not sure either, but if already dead, no amount of searching would produce a live child, so how could it be hindered?
That would be with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't it? It the courts decide that Amaral's book HAS hindered the search, award the McCanns compensation and then in six months or six years time a body does turn up does that mean that the judgment can be overturned? I wouldn't have thought so, would you?
-
How would that help him? Finding a body does not equal "The McCanns dunnit".
No, it wouldn't. But he might have hoped that find a body would have ruled her out as a litigant.
-
That would be with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't it? It the courts decide that Amaral's book HAS hindered the search, award the McCanns compensation and then in six months or six years time a body does turn up does that mean that the judgment can be overturned? I wouldn't have thought so, would you?
That's the sort of question that keeps lawyers in business for years ?{)(**
In the case of Archer and Aitken, the verdicts of their trial were overturned when it was shown that their basic claims were without substance.
-
That's the sort of question that keeps lawyers in business for years ?{)(**
In the case of Archer and Aitken, the verdicts of their trial were overturned when it was shown that their basic claims were without substance.
body or no body, Amaral has hindered the search to find out what really happened to Madeleine, by trying to convince the world that the culprits were the parents. I'm sure on that basis alone the judgment would stand.
-
body or no body, Amaral has hindered the search to find out what really happened to Madeleine, by trying to convince the world that the culprits were the parents. I'm sure on that basis alone the judgment would stand.
I don't think it will be that straightforward. The McCanns will apparently need to prove direct damage and quantify it, unless I've misunderstood.
-
I don't think it will be that straightforward. The McCanns will apparently need to prove direct damage and quantify it, unless I've misunderstood.
Well if that's the case they won't win. How do you quantify the amount of harm done to the search for a missing person?
-
Well if that's the case they won't win. How do you quantify the amount of harm done to the search for a missing person?
No harm done to search.
Never happened.
People made up their own minds whether they believed the mccanns or not.
-
I don't think it will be that straightforward. The McCanns will apparently need to prove direct damage and quantify it, unless I've misunderstood.
I agree Carana - I don't see how such damage can be quantified - as they can't assess what would have happened if Amaral had not written his book. However, I truly believe the McCanns would be more than content with a judgement that the book is libellous - and that compensation is not their main concern. IMO the figure of £1m plus was asked for because that was the estimated profit Amaral made from his book. Obviously the idea of him living the high life on the back of their little girl would be grossly offensive to them.
I wouldn't like to even hazard a guess at the outcome of this trial - as nothing would surprise me.
-
Well if that's the case they won't win. How do you quantify the amount of harm done to the search for a missing person?
That's part of the issue, IMO. I'm not sure if there's any legal precedent in Portugal on that, although I would have thought that it was the strongest point. Eliminating Madeleine's rights weakens the case.
How are the parents supposed to prove the extent of direct damage done by Amaral & co.., via the book, film and various interviews (if they are included) to the rest of the family?
The constant leaks of half-truths coming out of Portugal under Amaral's watch won't count (cf Murat v CdaM et al).
My concern is that, if he does win, certain quarters will be crowing that his hypothesis was correct, when, in fact, the legal basis of the case is quite different.
-
body or no body, Amaral has hindered the search to find out what really happened to Madeleine, by trying to convince the world that the culprits were the parents. I'm sure on that basis alone the judgment would stand.
I can't see how Amaral had any effect on any of the private detectives employed by the McCanns to search for Madeleine.
Why should the McCanns have expected the general public to do their searching for them when they had these detectives at their beck and call?
-
This whole saga seems to be a sequence of deadlines for something to happen, with the expiry of one deadline hotly pursued by the inception of another deadline for something else to happen; and (usually) no clear indication of whether the deadline for the previous occurrence was actually met or not.
It's all very confusing ...
Wouldn't it gave been so much simpler if the McCanns had sued Amaral in the UK ? Gilet has lead us to believe that they are considering just such an action if they win in Portugal so why not sue him in this country to begin with ?
-
I agree Carana - I don't see how such damage can be quantified - as they can't assess what would have happened if Amaral had not written his book. However, I truly believe the McCanns would be more than content with a judgement that the book is libellous - and that compensation is not their main concern. IMO the figure of £1m plus was asked for because that was the estimated profit Amaral made from his book. Obviously the idea of him living the high life on the back of their little girl would be grossly offensive to them.
I wouldn't like to even hazard a guess at the outcome of this trial - as nothing would surprise me.
Again, it will depend on the judge and what is taken into account in the first instance. Some of what he has stated is in the initial portion of the files, but other assertions are based on hearsay or on "misunderstandings". He became bolder in his interviews. I have no idea whether the judge will find that he had ought to have read all of the available files and thereby rectify the incorrect assumptions to which he responded on pink matinée TV couches. Who knows?
-
I can't see how Amaral had any effect on any of the private detectives employed by the McCanns to search for Madeleine.
Why should the McCanns have expected the general public to do their searching for them when they had these detectives at their beck and call?
It depends what you call "searching". Trying to keep the public vigilant is also a form of helping the search. By asserting that she died (based on no evidence), Amaral was negating that effort.
For me, the issue goes beyond Madeleine - something similar could happen to anyone, anywhere.
Not only that, but there is a substantial possibility that some creep is still out there who could strike again.
-
It depends what you call "searching". Trying to keep the public vigilant is also a form of helping the search. By asserting that she died (based on no evidence), Amaral was negating that effort.
For me, the issue goes beyond Madeleine - something similar could happen to anyone, anywhere.
I believe the McCanns were always aware that they could never prove in a court that Amaral's book had harmed the search. It was simply a way to justify them using the fund to pay for their litigation in Portugal.
-
It depends what you call "searching". Trying to keep the public vigilant is also a form of helping the search. By asserting that she died (based on no evidence), Amaral was negating that effort.
For me, the issue goes beyond Madeleine - something similar could happen to anyone, anywhere.
Not only that, but there is a substantial possibility that some creep is still out there who could strike again.
That would only be true for those who took heed of what he said.
As he didn't run an international awareness campaign claiming she was dead, I don't suppose his influence would have been very great outside of Portugal.
-
That would only be true for those who took heed of what he said.
As he didn't run an international awareness campaign claiming she was dead, I don't suppose his influence would have been very great outside of Portugal.
Portugal is where Madeleine went missing and there is a high probability that whoever took her had close connections with Portugal, and may still reside in Portugal. Amaral has been extraordinarily successful in convincing the Portuguese that the McCanns are as guilty as hell, which isn't very helpful in the search for answers.
-
That would only be true for those who took heed of what he said.
As he didn't run an international awareness campaign claiming she was dead, I don't suppose his influence would have been very great outside of Portugal.
Hmmm. He seems to have clearly affected opinion in Portugal, which is where she disappeared from after all and where she might actually still be (dead or alive). He has given some interviews to foreign media, as have his pals, and his spoutings have been widely translated or summarised in MSM or social media elsewhere.
It's on record that the PT police were leaking like a sieve, and nearly all of the leaks were under his watch. That, however, is unlikley to be taken into account, but quite likely added to the best-selling element of his book.
-
Portugal is where Madeleine went missing and there is a high probability that whoever took her had close connections with Portugal, and may still reside in Portugal. Amaral has been extraordinarily successful in convincing the Portuguese that the McCanns are as guilty as hell, which isn't very helpful in the search for answers.
Snap.
-
I believe the McCanns were always aware that they could never prove in a court that Amaral's book had harmed the search. It was simply a way to justify them using the fund to pay for their litigation in Portugal.
I don't follow the logic.
-
I don't follow the logic.
Oh I'm sure you do Carana.
-
Oh I'm sure you do Carana.
Nope.
You said:
It was simply a way to justify them using the fund to pay for their litigation in Portugal.
I don't know what you mean by that.
-
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice;
so there you are...the book certainly interfered with the search by convincing people maddie was dead and her parents involved
-
I think it's worth reading the Murat appeal ruling although several aspects are unlikely to be relevant to the McCann trial.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument
From what I can decipher, he originally lost his case, but won on appeal on a number of grounds that were accepted (some weren't).
He couldn't prove either that the allegations against him were false, which is one of the conditions for civil responsibility liability. However, the appeal judges took into account the presumption of innocence and a number of other factors.
On the other hand, Portuguese media law came into play in his case as he was suing a periodical: the editor of a newspaper (CdaM) and the journalists who penned the articles. PT media law seems fairly clear concerning the rights and duties of the press.
What is less clear to me is whether media law would extend to the author, publisher, broadcaster and distributor in the McCann case.
-
What's next?
- Has Amaral found a new lawyer yet?
- The McCanns will have to submit documentation to the satisfaction of the judge as to whether Madeleine was eligible to be represented in court or not.
- Those required to be in court will need to be present for the next episode of the saga.
Anything else?
-
The only thing I can think of at the moment is, "How much longer is this going to take?"
-
The only thing I can think of at the moment is, "How much longer is this going to take?"
At least another decade, I expect, as whatever happens will probably go through various appeals.
Hopefully Madeleine will have been found by then.
-
At least another decade, I expect, as whatever happens will probably go through various appeals.
Hopefully Madeleine will have been found by then.
Another decade and she won't be a child (if still alive)
-
Another decade and she won't be a child (if still alive)
She would still be a missing person unless found in the meantime.
-
I fear she will always be a missing person
-
At least another decade, I expect, as whatever happens will probably go through various appeals.
Hopefully Madeleine will have been found by then.
I'm far from convinced of that, you know.
There has to be a basis of appeal.
In heaven's name, what?
-
look up the definition of libel...libel has been established...the court will decide if amaral has any defence to the charge of libel...if you have read the witness statements...you will see that this is exactly what amaral has been trying to do...he has been trying to prove that his libellous statements are supported by the files...
-
He has the technical permission to appeal.
But he must find a basis.
I can't for the life of me think what.
Suppose the McCanns lose, do you think they wouldn't have a basis to appeal?
-
Suppose the McCanns lose, do you think they wouldn't have a basis to appeal?
according to a Portuguese poster who I think understands the law there could be several appeals., BUT I think the truth is we don t really know
-
Suppose the McCanns lose, do you think they wouldn't have a basis to appeal?
I am, perhaps arrogantly (but I believe my arrogance is justified) taking it as a given that the McCanns will win, simply because there is so much they can prove that lowers their reputation and is untrue.
Where does Amaral go from there?
-
I'm far from convinced of that, you know.
There has to be a basis of appeal.
In heaven's name, what?
Murat's lawyer found bases for appeal (not all were accepted, however).
-
I am, perhaps arrogantly (but I believe my arrogance is justified) taking it as a given that the McCanns will win, simply because there is so much they can prove that lowers their reputation and is untrue.
Where does Amaral go from there?
I would totally agree with you if the case was being tried in the UK. However, it isn't.
-
I would totally agree with you if the case was being tried in the UK. However, it isn't.
you only have to look at..
one...the state of amaral...he understands the law
two...amarals witnesses...they have all been trying to show amarals book is the same as the files...ie...trying to justify amarals libel
-
you only have to look at..
one...the state of amaral...he understands the law
two...amarals witnesses...they have all been trying to show amarals book is the same as the files...ie...trying to justify amarals libel
Yes, I'd agree that the thrust of his defence in terms of witnesses was to establish that what he'd stated was in the files and, curiously, a number of his witnesses were rather vague as to what they'd read or watched.
ETA: Some of it was in the files, other parts seem to rely on hearsay which isn't, and then there is a certain amount of literary licence. And what he considers to be in the files was only up until he was removed from the case... although to read or listen to him beyond the early days, you'd never know that.
-
look up the definition of libel...libel has been established...the court will decide if amaral has any defence to the charge of libel...if you have read the witness statements...you will see that this is exactly what amaral has been trying to do...he has been trying to prove that his libellous statements are supported by the files...
No verdict has been reached in the case.
It is a libel trial.
The mccanns and the defendants, including Amaral, are now awaiting the final stages of the trial, before the judgement is made in due course.
Libel has not been proved dave until then, and that is not certain either.
You must really try and control your hatred of Amaral dave, and do try and remember there are other defendants in the trial.
-
Actually davel, provide proof that Amaral and the other defendants have committed libel in Portugal.
Note of course the book ban was overturned.
-
Actually davel, provide proof that Amaral and the other defendants have committed libel in Portugal.
Note of course the book ban was overturned.
legal definition of libel...
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Amaral has written a book that accuses the mccanns of criminal acts and has therefore committed libel
-
legal definition of libel...
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Amaral has written a book that accuses the mccanns of criminal acts and has therefore committed libel
It doesn't seem that straightforward in PT, Davel.
-
that's not what the legal definition of libel says but of course you think you know better
So what happens in the case of someone bring a libel case and losing? Was it libel or not?
-
So what happens in the case of someone bring a libel case and losing? Was it libel or not?
it was a libellous statement but the defendant had a defence..ie the statement was true
-
it was a libellous statement but the defendant had a defence..ie the statement was true
If the person was found not guilty of libel, then it cannot have been libel.
-
So it wasn't libel.
definition of libel
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
So if I call amaral a disgraced cop.... that damages his reputation and is therefore by definition libellous...however...I have a defence...its true
-
definition of libel
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
So if I call amaral a disgraced cop.... that damages his reputation and is therefore by definition libellous...however...I have a defence...its true
Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted to be false.
-
I know you are a bit limited, but libel has to be proved.
Now, book a plane, trot off to Portugal , and accuse Amaral there.
Go on, GIVE IT A TRY.
I have given you a legal definition of libel that does not include anything about proof...can you supply one that does ?
-
So who decides that something is false?
-
So who decides that something is false?
The default position of the mccanns is innocent so the allegation are false..
-
The default position of the mccanns is innocent so the allegation are false..
In the Murat appeal case, the presumption of innocence was a point in his favour.
-
Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted to be false.
Of course it does.
-
Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted to be false.
Murat won his case on appeal, and there was no way that he could prove a negative in terms of the allegations against him.
Now, whether or not that was because he was suing a newspaper is a point that I haven't been able to clarify.
-
In the Murat appeal case, the presumption of innocence was a point in his favour.
From what I have read in the US the burden of proof would be on amaral...
also...why has amaral been desperately trying to justify his statements if he doesn't have to and the mccanns have made no attempt to prove their innocence
-
The default position of the mccanns is innocent so the allegation are false..
Nature of crime unknown dave.
So how does that absolve the mccanns, as nobody has been charged yet ?
-
From what I have read in the US the burden of proof would be on amaral...
also...why has amaral been desperately trying to justify his statements if he doesn't have to and the mccanns have made no attempt to prove their innocence
Don't be so coy.
If the mccanns didn't conduct this action, then the attention would still be on them.
-
Murat won his case on appeal, and there was no way that he could prove a negative in terms of the allegations against him.
Now, whether or not that was because he was suing a newspaper is a point that I haven't been able to clarify.
I think that this is an interesting point. But in the case of The Libel Trial it was all published or Media stuff.
-
I think that this is an interesting point. But in the case of The Libel Trial it was all published or Media stuff.
Yes, but that may depend on how the judge interprets media law. It's quite clear in terms of editors of periodicals and journalists.
Amaral isn't a journalist (according to the legal definition in the PT media law), and the publisher of the book isn't a periodical (in the sense of a newspaper that appears on a regular basis).
So.... dunno.
-
If amaral had a decent chance of winning this trial he would be in court getting his life and Jag back on the road...he isn't...he's doing everything he can to delay the trial...he's toast and he knows it
-
Yes, but that may depend on how the judge interprets media law. It's quite clear in terms of editors of periodicals and journalists.
Amaral isn't a journalist (according to the legal definition in the PT media law), and the publisher of the book isn't a periodical (in the sense of a newspaper that appears on a regular basis).
So.... dunno.
For anyone who read the press here in Portugal or watched the television reports at the time, Gonçalo Amaral's book offered no surprises. Everything in the book was already known to the general public. For those expecting revelations, it was a bit of a disappointment. The only advantage was that it was compact and easier to read, as one of the McCanns' witnesses said.
-
For anyone who read the press here in Portugal or watched the television reports at the time, Gonçalo Amaral's book offered no surprises. Everything in the book was already known to the general public. For those expecting revelations, it was a bit of a disappointment. The only advantage was that it was compact and easier to read, as one of the McCanns' witnesses said.
Precisely.
So why didn't the mccanns go for other targets ?
Answer, they thought he was easy prey.
-
For anyone who read the press here in Portugal or watched the television reports at the time, Gonçalo Amaral's book offered no surprises. Everything in the book was already known to the general public. For those expecting revelations, it was a bit of a disappointment. The only advantage was that it was compact and easier to read, as one of the McCanns' witnesses said.
it was surprising he libelled the mccanns so blatantly...had he been a little smarter he could have worded it so as to suggest what he thought MIGHT have happened rather than accusing the mccanns outright...he wouldnt be in so much trouble then
-
For anyone who read the press here in Portugal or watched the television reports at the time, Gonçalo Amaral's book offered no surprises. Everything in the book was already known to the general public. For those expecting revelations, it was a bit of a disappointment. The only advantage was that it was compact and easier to read, as one of the McCanns' witnesses said.
How could that be when the book was launched only a few days after the legal summary and until then the investigation was under judicial secrecy?
-
what lawyer will work for amaral when he hasn't paid his last one..will his last one sue him for the outstanding fees
-
what lawyer will work for amaral when he hasn't paid his last one..will his last one sue him for the outstanding fees
ever heard of pro bono dave the mcanns had pro bono lawyers did they not?
-
ever heard of pro bono dave the mcanns had pro bono lawyers did they not?
He will have to google that one. 8((()*/
-
He will have to google that one. 8((()*/
Still no answer @)(++(*
-
ever heard of pro bono dave the mcanns had pro bono lawyers did they not?
it seems amarals wasn't as he is complaining about not being paid
-
There seems to be a bit of industrial unrest in Portugal some of which will coincide with the libel trial date, wonder if there might be opportunity to work it into the delaying timetable.
Poruguese CGTP union threatens further strikes in July
After thunderous protest in Lisbon over the weekend which brought busloads of protesters from all over the country, the CGTP union is threatening further strike action for July 10.
This will follow a doctor’s strike earmarked for July 8 and 9.
Union leader Arménio Carlos (pictured) confirmed the July 10 action in front of hundreds of demonstrators in Rossio on Saturday.
The government’s labour policies are leading to increased poverty, he claimed as the crowds before him chanted the habitual: “A luta continua, Governo para a rua” (loosely translated into, ‘we have to keep protesting until the government falls’).
- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/poruguese-cgtp-union-threatens-further-strikes-in-july#sthash.geTbepHF.dpuf
-
it seems amarals wasn't as he is complaining about not being paid
I suspect Carly Michelle is confusing 'pro bono' (services offered without charge) with conditional fee (offered to the McCanns by Carter Ruck, who are certainly not pro bono solicitors).
Conditional fee means you are paid if you win.
-
If Amaral has nothing to hide.....why is he stalling?
-
I think that this is an interesting point. But in the case of The Libel Trial it was all published or Media stuff.
I think you are mixing up sceptics and supporters of Amaral. You tend to do the same with supporters of the McCanns and supporters of Madeleine.
-
Deleted
-
legal definition of libel...
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Amaral has written a book that accuses the mccanns of criminal acts and has therefore committed libel
So let's see, who is going to determine if those criminal acts are fact or fiction? A Lisbon judge?
The libel trial cannot be legally determined until the criminal case is concluded.
-
So let's see, who is going to determine if those criminal acts are fact it fiction? A Lisbon judge?
The libel trial cannot be legally determined until the criminal case is concluded.
Not sure that would be so, as the criminal case may never be resolved, but verdict ought to be reversible if a criminal verdict were to indicate that the libel verdict was wrong.
-
Not sure that would be so, as the criminal case may never be resolved, but verdict ought to be reversible if a criminal verdict were to indicate that the libel verdict was wrong.
I see it as a stalemate, the defamation cannot be proven one way or the other.
-
Presumption of Innocence.
-
Presumption of Innocence.
It's anyone's guess as to how this case will go. However, presumption of innocence was indeed a factor in Murat's appeal trial.
-
It's anyone's guess as to how this case will go. However, presumption of innocence was indeed a factor in Murat's appeal trial.
I am glad to hear that it still exists in Portugal.
-
I am glad to hear that it still exists in Portugal.
Indeed, although it's a shame that that was only recognised upon appeal, for some reason.
Another interesting aspect in that appeal ruling was the concept that what may be of interest to the public is not necessarily in the public interest. A caveat about that is that Murat was suing the editor and journalists of CdaM, which the appeal judges deemed to fall within the statutes of media law. I've no idea whether it would apply to the McCann case or not.
-
Indeed, although it's a shame that that was only recognised upon appeal, for some reason.
Another interesting aspect in that appeal ruling was the concept that what may be of interest to the public is not necessarily in the public interest. A caveat about that is that Murat was suing the editor and journalists of CdaM, which the appeal judges deemed to fall within the statutes of media law. I've no idea whether it would apply to the McCann case or not.
I believe UK courts make similar rulings.
-
I believe UK courts make similar rulings.
Yes, and rightly so, IMO, in view of the numerous press transgressions by the UK and other countries on any number of issues.
That said, it may depend on how Portuguese law on this is interpreted. For example, Amaral wouldn't qualify as a "journalist". And G & P aren't the "editors" of a "periodical".
I posted a link to PT media law on here somewhere, unless it got whooshed.
-
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
#Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February
-
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
#Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February
Of which year?
-
Of which year?
Good question...
-
let's hope the libel trial actually completes next year
-
Of which year?
Surely you must mean which century ...
Don't you?
-
let's hope the libel trial actually completes next year
I'm not holding my breath.
-
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
#Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February
About time too!
-
I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?
-
I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?
In so far as I can fathom the method of due process in Portugal, in sense, it may be.
A trial to determine damage arising from proven and established libel.
Can't make sense of Santos' opening appeal to let proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madleine be alive any other way.
-
I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?
Confusing to say the least. However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law. That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.
-
I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?
For some reason some posters are trying to pretend this is not a libel trial...this clip from a post on Joanna Morais' site confirms it is...
They were the ones who took him to court for defamation and asked to suspend the judgement in order to negotiate. On the eve of the trial of Gonçalo Amaral, against whom they filed a complaint, the McCanns asked to negotiate.
by Hernâni Carvalho
-
Confusing to say the least. However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law. That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.
The ban was overturned because libel had not been decided...that's what this trial is about
-
For some reason some posters are trying to pretend this is not a libel trial...this clip from a post on Joanna Morais' site confirms it is...
They were the ones who took him to court for defamation and asked to suspend the judgement in order to negotiate. On the eve of the trial of Gonçalo Amaral, against whom they filed a complaint, the McCanns asked to negotiate.
by Hernâni Carvalho
A libel can never be proven in the McCann case until it is known what befell Madeleine and who if anyone was responsible.
-
A report from the Correio Da Mahna re the DEFAMATION trial...
O casal McCann chega a Lisboa na segunda-feira, para o reatar do julgamento do processo em que os pais de Madeleine pedem indemnização de 1,2 milhões de euros, por difamação, ao ex-inspetor da PJ Gonçalo Amaral
-
Confusing to say the least. However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law. That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.
No.
We've been through that.
The dispute over the injunction was whether Amaral had a right to free speech or the McCanns had a right to protection of their reputation.
The original ruling was that the McCanns' right to a good reputation should hold sway; the appeal that Amaral's right to free speech should hold sway.
The libel trial (strangely enough) is to determine questions of libel ...
-
No.
We've been through that.
The dispute over the injunction was whether Amaral had a right to free speech or the McCanns had a right to protection of their reputation.
The original ruling was that the McCanns' right to a good reputation should hold sway; the appeal that Amaral's right to free speech should hold sway.
The libel trial (strangely enough) is to determine questions of libel ...
So, in layman's terms - the original trial was about getting the book banned, because it was libellous. That was concluded in Amaral's favour under his right to free speech.
The latest trial, which falls under the McCanns' right to reply, is for damages as a result of the alleged libel in the book which has been available for the public to purchase.
Have I got that right?
-
So, in layman's terms - the original trial was about getting the book banned, because it was libellous. That was concluded in Amaral's favour under his right to free speech.
The latest trial, which falls under the McCanns' right to reply, is for damages as a result of the alleged libel in the book which has been available for the public to purchase.
Have I got that right?
Not quite.
The point at issue in the dispute over the injunction was two provisions of the Portuguese constitution, one that guarantees the right of citizens to a good name; the other, that guarantees the right of citizens to free speech.
There is an obvious conflict, there, resolved (on appeal) in favour of Amaral's right to free speech.
In both those original actions, libel played no part.
-
Not quite.
The point at issue in the dispute over the injunction was two provisions of the Portuguese constitution, one that guarantees the right of citizens to a good name; the other, that guarantees the right of citizens to free speech.
There is an obvious conflict, there, resolved (on appeal) in favour of Amaral's right to free speech.
In both those original actions, libel played no part.
No, the appeals court ruled not only in favour of Gonçalo Amaral's right to free speech but also ruled that what he wrote in his book was as valid a thesis as any other and not libellous. Furthermore, the judges ruled that the McCanns personal rights and good name were not damaged.
-
No, the appeals court ruled not only in favour of Gonçalo Amaral's right to free speech but also ruled that what he wrote in his book was as valid a thesis as any other and not libellous. Furthermore, the judges ruled that the McCanns personal rights and good name were not damaged.
Thankfully (for the McCanns, who I happen to support) you are wrong.
-
The ban was overturned because libel had not been decided...that's what this trial is about
The trial is about whether the McCanns should receive compensation for any damages caused to them personally by the book. The appeals court had already decided that the book was not libellous in 2010 and no lower court can overrule this decision.
-
A libel can never be proven in the McCann case until it is known what befell Madeleine and who if anyone was responsible.
Murat won his case against CdaM on appeal, though.
-
Thankfully (for the McCanns, who I happen to support) you are wrong.
Please explain where I am wrong.
-
The trial is about whether the McCanns should receive compensation for any damages caused to them personally by the book. The appeals court had already decided that the book was not libellous in 2010 and no lower court can overrule this decision.
Libel has been either determined or admitted and the purpose of continued court proceedings to establish damage arising from proven and established libel ...
In reply to your latest post, I have already done so ...
-
Libel has been either determined or admitted and the purpose of continued court proceedings to establish damage arising from proven and established libel ...
In reply to your latest post, I have already done so ...
No libel old son.
The crime has yet to be determined.
-
No libel old son.
The crime has yet to be determined.
Good grief!
Haven't you yet caught up with the fact that the libel trial is a civil action?
-
No libel old son.
The crime has yet to be determined.
It must be time for someone to say "ex parte" 8(0(*
-
It must be time for someone to say "ex parte" 8(0(*
The appeal that overturned the injunction was ex-parte
There!
-
It's amazing how many non portuguese are so familiar with portuguese law...
-
Very confusing. Old article from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned)
-
This is from the McCann Files re the findings of The Court of Appeal.
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
Let us now analyse the juridical focus of the rights that were invoked by the applicants:
As mentioned above, the Court's decision a quo immediately put aside the dangers of damage to the applicants' physical integrity or their treatment in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way.
The following dangers subsist:
1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life;
2. damage to their right to image and a good name;
3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.
Concerning the applicants' reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced by the British TV station "Channel 4", which had the applicants’ cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (ref. Nos. 32 to 35 of the aforementioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television talk show "Oprah" hosted by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (ref. No. 40 of the same facts).
Concerning this matter, the Civil Code establishes as follows:
Article 80º
(Right to reservation over the intimacy of private life)
1. Everyone must maintain the reservation over someone else's intimacy of private life.
2. The extent of reservation is defined according to the nature of the case and the persons' condition.
Article 81º
(Voluntary limitation of personality rights)
1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.
2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party.
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.[/b]
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html
-
It's amazing how many non portuguese are so familiar with portuguese law...
Beware the Jabberwock my son the jaws that bite without err and shun the frumious professional Goo-Glerr
-
It's amazing how many non portuguese are so familiar with portuguese law...
After seven years who wouldn't be.
-
Good grief!
Haven't you yet caught up with the fact that the libel trial is a civil action?
This isn't a libel trial.
-
After seven years who wouldn't be.
There seem to be a fair few who judge what is going on by English Law standards. They are unable to grasp the concept of damages without an offence.
-
There seem to be a fair few who judge what is going on by English Law standards. They are unable to grasp the concept of damages without an offence.
The Portuguese paper Correio Da Mahna refers to the case as a defamation action in an article dated june this year.....do you think they are wrong
-
There seem to be a fair few who judge what is going on by English Law standards. They are unable to grasp the concept of damages without an offence.
Hmmm ... so nobody commits an offence against me ... but Portuguese law allows me to sue for damages.
&%+((£ I'll need to give that some thought.
-
Could you tell us who us the author of the above post..it looks to me that this is part of the deposition made by amarals legal team and are not the opinion of the court
It is a translation of the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa made public on 19 October 2010. The authors are the three judges.
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
-
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where, in the dispatch, does it say that Eddie had (sic) no hesitation in reacting to the Renault Scenic?
According to the dispatch, there was nothing to link either McCann (senior) to crime(s) against Madeleine.
How does that accord with the very last chapter of Amaral's book?
Where does the dispatch say anything about Kate sacking a UK liaison officer? That's in Amaral's book.
-
From the archiving dispatch:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
Perhaps Montclaire would care to point out where any of that is reflected in Amaral's book?
-
From the archiving dispatch:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
Perhaps Montclaire would care to point out where any of that is reflected in Amaral's book?
If you have a problem with the judges' ruling, take it up with them, I didn't write it.
-
No, the appeals court ruled not only in favour of Gonçalo Amaral's right to free speech but also ruled that what he wrote in his book was as valid a thesis as any other and not libellous. Furthermore, the judges ruled that the McCanns personal rights and good name were not damaged.
So why is this a damages trial then?
-
If you have a problem with the judges' ruling, take it up with them, I didn't write it.
The judgment overturning the ban on the injunction was a strictly subjective interpretation favouring one tenet of the Portuguese constitution over another.
The judgment on the libel trial (which, so far as I can assess, seeks to establish appropriate damage payments for proven and established libel) is still awaited ....
And Alfred asks a valid question.
If libel has already been rejected, what exactly is the purpose of continued court proceedings?
Damages for what?
-
It sounds like semantics to me. Libel? Defamation? Damages? What The Judge has to decide is, are The McCann's Rights more important than Amaral's Rights?
And since The Portuguese Court seized Amaral's money and property, there was always a distinct possibility that The McCann's Rights would prove to be more important.
-
It sounds like semantics to me. Libel? Defamation? Damages? What The Judge has to decide is, are The McCann's Rights more important than Amaral's Rights?
And since The Portuguese Court seized Amaral's money and property, there was always a distinct possibility that The McCann's Rights would prove to be more important.
I beg to (semantically) differ!
That was the question decided (on appeal, by an ex-parte judgment) in overturning the injunction.
The purpose of present proceedings is to determine libel!
-
The first part of the translation of the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa of 19 October 2010:
Unspecified Injunction
Process number 6.000/2009
Appeal
I – Report
At the judicial circuit of Lisbon
Kate Marie Healey McCann,
Gerald Patrick McCann,
Madeleine Beth McCann,
Sean Michael McCann and
Amelie Eve McCann
Have filed an unspecified injunction against
Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.,
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA,
Alleging that the first two applicants are the Mother and Father of the other applicants, that are all underage, being that it is commonly known that little Madeleine disappeared on the 3rd of May, 2007, and her disappearance prompted an extensive police investigation.
The defendant, Gonçalo Amaral, was one of the Judiciary Police (PJ) investigators that was involved in the investigation and later on wrote a book that is titled “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”, in which he defends, inter alia, that there is a serious possibility that little Maddie accidentally died in the apartment where she was staying and that her parents did, in some manner, undertake the concealment of her cadaver.
They conclude by requesting:
1. The prohibition of sale and the order to collect, for destruction, all the books and videos that are still left at points of sale or other deposits or warehouses;
2. The prohibition to perform any new editions of the book or the video, or of any other books and / or videos that defend the same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be sold or made public by any other means, in Portugal;
3. The prohibition to cede the editorial or author rights of the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;
4. The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants;
5. The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;
6. The prohibition to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.
The petition was fully refused as it was understood that the perils of damage had already been consummated.
In an appeal, that decision was revoked by a decision of this Appeals Court, and the production of evidence was demanded.
After evidence was produced before the lower court, a new sentence was issued, which sustained the injunction and decided as follows:
a) The prohibition for the defendants to sell the books and videos that were still available at points of sale or at other deposits or warehouses and the obligation for the defendants to collect them and to deliver them to the depositary that is nominated below;
b) The prohibition for the defendants to perform any new editions of the book or the video, or of any other books and/or videos that defend the same thesis, and that are destined to be sold or made public by any other means in Portugal;
c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editorial or author rights over the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;
d) The prohibition for the Defendants to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants;
e) The prohibition for the Defendants to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;
f) The prohibition for the Defendants to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.
Furthermore, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant firms to pay a compulsory pecuniary sanction of 1000 euro for each day that they do not obey the prohibitions or the order to apprehend the books and the videos.
After having been notified of that decision, appeals were filed by:
Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA,
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA,
All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation’s archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Republic.
A new sentence was issued, which basically upheld the sentence that had been issued before and that granted the request.
Against that sentence, appeals were filed by the four opponents.
[a summary of the arguments that were presented by the four opponents follows]
II – Fundaments
The following facts were proved:
From the request
1- On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”.
2 – In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:
“1. The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
“2. The simulation of an abduction took place;
“3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver,
“4. The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
“5. There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.”
3 – The aforementioned book attained 4 editions until the end of July, 2008, 9 editions until the end of August, 2008, and 12 editions until the end of September, 2008.
4 – Each edition comprised approximately 10.000 copies.
5 – The book is presently sold out at practically all points of sale.
6 – When the book was published, the first Defendant gave interviews to all the media that requested him to do so, namely RTP, and in those interviews he defended the thesis that he presents in the book.
7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to “Correio da Manhã” newspaper, which was published in their edition of the 24th of July, 2008, where he defended the thesis that he presents in the book.
8 – At the beginning of the month of May, 2009, the same book was published in France, now under the title “Maddie, L’Enquête interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé de l’enquête”.
9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published by newspaper “Le Parisien” and its corresponding website.
10 – In those interviews, the first Defendant once more mentioned the theses that he presents in the book.
11 – The book’s French edition is be systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least at:
[a list of websites follows]
12 – Between the date when the Portuguese edition was published, on 24.07.2008, and the date of the book’s French edition, in May 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a television programme which was produced by the third Defendant, that reserved to itself the ownership of the corresponding rights.
13 – The first emission of that television programme took place on the 13th of April, 2009.
14 – The second emission of that television contents took place on the 12th of May, 2009.
15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least on those two occasions.
16 – The same programme/video is intrinsically based upon the contents of the book “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”.
[to be completed]
After reading the proved facts, we do now have to put them into juridical context.
Concerning the suitability or unsuitability of the appeals, it is considered that the matter is solved in the dispatch that was written at the lower court, on pages 1.359/1.367, and the appeals are all suitable.
As was written, and well, in the decision that is under analysis, the injunction is a legal instrument that is destined to effectively protect subjective rights or other jurisdictionally relevant interests.
Its practical importance does not result from the capacity to solve conflicts of interest in an autonomous and definitive way, but rather from its usefulness in the anticipation of certain effects of judicial decisions, in the prevention of serious or hardly repairable violation of rights, in the prevention of financial damages or in the preservation of status quo, until the final decision on the case is issued.
[to be completed]
The right to inform is nowadays unanimously accepted as a fundamental demand of democratic societies of pluralist expression; it is consecrated by article 37 of the Republic’s Constitution.
The rights of citizenship, which are the basis of social life, constitute the core of the very personality (physical and moral) of the human being; thus the right to life, to physical and moral integrity, to a good name, to image, to freedom, to the protection of intimacy are consecrated constitutionally (articles 24, 25, 26) and in civil law (articles 70 and 484 of the Civil Code).
Due to the fact that all of these rights are constitutionally protected, in principle none of them raises above the others, and – in its practical exercise – each one of them should cede as strictly necessary and in a proportional way, in order to accommodate the adequate practice of the rest of them.
Necessity, proportionality and adequacy are the fundamental principles for the practical conjugation of the concrete exercise of said rights; therefore, the rules that are to be respected must be set case by case, thus allowing to decide which conflicting rights must be compressed, what limits have to be observed and what dominant rights must be protected.
And it is through a cautious pondering of the rights at hand that we will be able to extract some conclusions concerning this specific case.
The book that was written by the first defendant, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, presents a thesis that was at one time defended by several participants in the police investigation: that little Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents, here the first applicants, were suspected of concealing the cadaver.
This defendant was the Coordinating Inspector of the investigation into the case of the disappearance, thus being the most qualified police officer who intervened in the investigation until the time when, through a decision from the Judiciary Police’s (PJ) directory, he was removed from that function.
In that role, the defendant was deeply involved in the entire investigation and had the opportunity to formulate all of the possible conclusions about the case, while it was under investigation.
Approximately 5 months later, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral was removed from the investigation through a decision of the PJ’s directory.
As he clarifies several times throughout the book, the author felt the need to write it right away in order to, as he says, “recover my good name, which was publicly dragged through the mud while the institution that I served for 26 years, the Portuguese Judiciary Police, did not allow me to defend myself, nor defended me institutionally. I asked for permission to speak out in that sense, a request that remains unanswered to this day. I fully respected the PJ’s rules, and remained in silence. Nevertheless, said silence was tearing my dignity apart.
Later on, I was removed from the investigation. I then decided that it was time for me to defend myself in a public way. Therefore, I immediately requested my retirement, so I could regain the plenitude of my freedom of expression.”
This is a first point – and one that is not small – that should be registered: the author feels he is the victim of injustice and wants to reestablish the truth, at least his truth or his vision of truth, even more so as he felt that his honour was being diminished and the police force that he owed obedience to did not allow him to reply, as a police officer, to those attacks against his professional pride and his honour as a qualified criminal investigation police officer.
In the book that is at stake here – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – the author presents a vast multiplicity of facts and then offers his interpretation of said facts.
Those facts are all part of the investigation and are exhaustively considered and weighed in the archiving dispatch of the process that is on the DVD that has been appended to this court case (page 441).
In that description, there are main facts and others that are secondary, but which the author attributes value to, based on his experience as a police investigator, an activity that he has performed for 26 years.
-
The rest of the translation of the "acordão". I would have thought that davel knew what was written in it:
The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that “From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made, it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…”
In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by sniffer dogs “Eddie” (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and “Keela” (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) is mentioned.
“Eddie” marked (signalled) cadaver odour:
• in the McCann couple’s bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe,
• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa
• and in an area of the same apartment’s garden.
The dog “Eddie” again marked the signal of cadaver:
• at the “Vista do Mar” villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl,
• on clothing that belonged to the applicant Kate Healey, Madeleine’s mother,
• on the outside of the Renault Scénic vehicle with the license plate number 59-DA-27, that was rented by the McCann couple after the disappearance, next to the driver’s door,
• and on that vehicle’s key/card.
The dog “Keela” detected residues of human blood:
• in the same living room of apartment 5-A, which had already been signalled by “Eddie”,
• after the floor tiles that had been signalled during the first inspection had been removed, she again signalled the spot where the floor tiles had been,
• on the lower part of the window curtain that had already been signalled by “Eddie” before,
• on the inside of the boot of the Renault Scénic vehicle that had already been signalled by “Eddie”
• and in the door storage compartment on the vehicle’s driver’s side, which contained the car key/card.
The dogs’ indications cannot be used as evidence in court, but in multiple cases they provided precious help in terms of collection of evidence for the Scotland Yard and the FBI, with positive results.
These indications were later not corroborated by the British forensics lab that was chosen by the investigation, but they were enough to constitute the applicants, Madeleine’s parents, as arguidos in the criminal investigation that was performed over her disappearance.
In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities, Public Ministry and PJ, tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts remain to be clarified.
Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that “(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.
We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)”.
In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos.
The subsequent collection and production of evidence, namely the forensics evidence that was collected and treated in laboratory, weakened that conviction and thus the couple stopped being arguidos.
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs.
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
Let us now analyse the juridical focus of the rights that were invoked by the applicants:
As mentioned above, the Court’s decision a quo immediately put aside the dangers of damage to the applicants’ physical integrity or their treatment in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way.
The following dangers subsist:
- damage to the reservation of the applicants’ private and family life;
- damage to their right to image and a good name;
- damage to their right to usufruct the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.
Concerning the applicants’ reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced by the British tv station “Channel 4”, which had the applicants’ cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (cf. Nrs. 32 to 35 of the above-mentioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television show “Oprah”, which is presented by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (cf. Nr. 40 of the same facts).
Concerning this matter, the Civil Code establishes as follows:
Article 80
(Right to reservation over the intimacy of private life)
1. Everyone must maintain the reservation over someone else’s intimacy of private life.
2. The extent of reservation is defined according to the nature of the case and the persons’ condition.
Article 81
(Voluntary limitation of personality rights)
1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.
2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party.
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine’s whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in agreement with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book’s author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process’ guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry’s Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.
In summary:
The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37 and 38.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660, number 2, of the Civil Process Code.
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proven.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appealed parties.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appeals Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
-
Times have moved forward and I think it is the here and now which is the main concern, interesting as those documents are Montclair, and thank you for going to the trouble of posting them for us.
It is possibly being wildly optimistic to think that there will be any conclusion to the libel trial next February.
Until they get the software up and running, employ the staff to input data, catch up on the backlog and construct new court buildings ... I think things will remain chaotic for a time.
The new prosecutor seems to be living up to her vow to get Madeleine's case resolved in the face of this chaos as the delay in questioning the witnesses hasn't been as bad as it could have been.
I think most of us will be better pleased with a solution to Madeleine's case than the outcome of a libel trial.
Portugal's new 'judicial map' is failing due to lack of staff
Created: 02 December 2014
dacruzThree months after the launch of the new ‘judicial map’ under the control of the Ministry for Justice there are still some problems.
Software failures in the new Citius software programme and the lack of judicial officials to run the courts system are the main gripes from the secretary-general of the Trade Union Association of Portuguese Judges, Maria José Costeira, and the president of the Judicial Officers Union, Fernando Jorge.
Both officials agree that in terms of the new management model for the courts, each of the new judicial regions are working in isolation from the others despite the Citius system being designed to join up the court network and speed up the justice process.
To address the labour problem, the ASJP already has asked the Superior Council of Magistrates for help in standardising issues related to staff vacation and substituting judges.
The president of the Association of Prosecutors, Rui Cardoso, said today that the problems detected in the Citius computer system when it was installed in the country’s courts are being overcome and gradually resolved by the Ministry of Justice under Paula Teixeira da Cruz.
Another problem is the actual court buildings with planned renovations in Loures still on the drawing board and the court in Faro still operating from a series of Portakabins while the old court building is refurbished.
Fernando Jorge says that court staffing is about 1,000 below the number necessary, which according to Rui Cardoso, represents probably the most serious problem because this affects the proper functioning of the courts.
Jorge said that the Ministry of Justice has not been able to start the recruitment process for more staff as the request has been held up at the Ministry of Finance which must authorise the expenditure.
Maria Jose Costeira said that there still exist deficiencies in the Citius computer system, especially with cases that have yet to be entered into the system, in particular some bankruptcy cases that were due to heard in the commercial courts. This seems also to be the case for many debt enforcement actions, to the delight of the debtors.
With the long overdue judicial reforms, the country was divided into 23 districts, each with a central court in the district capital. Alongside this reorganisation, the Citius court and case management system was introduced but failed to function at all for six weeks thus further delaying the country’s caseload backlog.
Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz faced calls for her resignation during the Citius compuertisation crisis and certainly lost control of the reins for a time, developing the bad habit of blaming others rather than taking responsibility for the project that at the end of the day is hers and hers alone.
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/4141-portugal-s-new-judicial-map-is-failing-due-to-lack-of-staff
-
I posted the document because of the discussion about the libel case. I suppose you want me to move on because the document confirms that it was not a mish mash of the verdict and Amaral's deposition, as davel so wrongly stated.
-
The first part of the translation of the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa of 19 October 2010:
Unspecified Injunction
Process number 6.000/2009
Appeal
I – Report
At the judicial circuit of Lisbon
Kate Marie Healey McCann,
Gerald Patrick McCann,
Madeleine Beth McCann,
Sean Michael McCann and
Amelie Eve McCann
Have filed an unspecified injunction against
Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.,
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA,
Alleging that the first two applicants are the Mother and Father of the other applicants, that are all underage, being that it is commonly known that little Madeleine disappeared on the 3rd of May, 2007, and her disappearance prompted an extensive police investigation.
The defendant, Gonçalo Amaral, was one of the Judiciary Police (PJ) investigators that was involved in the investigation and later on wrote a book that is titled “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”, in which he defends, inter alia, that there is a serious possibility that little Maddie accidentally died in the apartment where she was staying and that her parents did, in some manner, undertake the concealment of her cadaver.
They conclude by requesting:
1. The prohibition of sale and the order to collect, for destruction, all the books and videos that are still left at points of sale or other deposits or warehouses;
2. The prohibition to perform any new editions of the book or the video, or of any other books and / or videos that defend the same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be sold or made public by any other means, in Portugal;
3. The prohibition to cede the editorial or author rights of the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;
4. The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants;
5. The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;
6. The prohibition to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.
The petition was fully refused as it was understood that the perils of damage had already been consummated.
In an appeal, that decision was revoked by a decision of this Appeals Court, and the production of evidence was demanded.
After evidence was produced before the lower court, a new sentence was issued, which sustained the injunction and decided as follows:
a) The prohibition for the defendants to sell the books and videos that were still available at points of sale or at other deposits or warehouses and the obligation for the defendants to collect them and to deliver them to the depositary that is nominated below;
b) The prohibition for the defendants to perform any new editions of the book or the video, or of any other books and/or videos that defend the same thesis, and that are destined to be sold or made public by any other means in Portugal;
c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editorial or author rights over the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;
d) The prohibition for the Defendants to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants;
e) The prohibition for the Defendants to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;
f) The prohibition for the Defendants to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.
Furthermore, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant firms to pay a compulsory pecuniary sanction of 1000 euro for each day that they do not obey the prohibitions or the order to apprehend the books and the videos.
After having been notified of that decision, appeals were filed by:
Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA,
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA,
All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation’s archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Republic.
A new sentence was issued, which basically upheld the sentence that had been issued before and that granted the request.
Against that sentence, appeals were filed by the four opponents.
[a summary of the arguments that were presented by the four opponents follows]
II – Fundaments
The following facts were proved:
From the request
1- On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”.
2 – In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:
“1. The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
“2. The simulation of an abduction took place;
“3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver,
“4. The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
“5. There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.”
3 – The aforementioned book attained 4 editions until the end of July, 2008, 9 editions until the end of August, 2008, and 12 editions until the end of September, 2008.
4 – Each edition comprised approximately 10.000 copies.
5 – The book is presently sold out at practically all points of sale.
6 – When the book was published, the first Defendant gave interviews to all the media that requested him to do so, namely RTP, and in those interviews he defended the thesis that he presents in the book.
7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to “Correio da Manhã” newspaper, which was published in their edition of the 24th of July, 2008, where he defended the thesis that he presents in the book.
8 – At the beginning of the month of May, 2009, the same book was published in France, now under the title “Maddie, L’Enquête interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé de l’enquête”.
9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published by newspaper “Le Parisien” and its corresponding website.
10 – In those interviews, the first Defendant once more mentioned the theses that he presents in the book.
11 – The book’s French edition is be systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least at:
[a list of websites follows]
12 – Between the date when the Portuguese edition was published, on 24.07.2008, and the date of the book’s French edition, in May 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a television programme which was produced by the third Defendant, that reserved to itself the ownership of the corresponding rights.
13 – The first emission of that television programme took place on the 13th of April, 2009.
14 – The second emission of that television contents took place on the 12th of May, 2009.
15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least on those two occasions.
16 – The same programme/video is intrinsically based upon the contents of the book “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”.
[to be completed]
After reading the proved facts, we do now have to put them into juridical context.
Concerning the suitability or unsuitability of the appeals, it is considered that the matter is solved in the dispatch that was written at the lower court, on pages 1.359/1.367, and the appeals are all suitable.
As was written, and well, in the decision that is under analysis, the injunction is a legal instrument that is destined to effectively protect subjective rights or other jurisdictionally relevant interests.
Its practical importance does not result from the capacity to solve conflicts of interest in an autonomous and definitive way, but rather from its usefulness in the anticipation of certain effects of judicial decisions, in the prevention of serious or hardly repairable violation of rights, in the prevention of financial damages or in the preservation of status quo, until the final decision on the case is issued.
[to be completed]
The right to inform is nowadays unanimously accepted as a fundamental demand of democratic societies of pluralist expression; it is consecrated by article 37 of the Republic’s Constitution.
The rights of citizenship, which are the basis of social life, constitute the core of the very personality (physical and moral) of the human being; thus the right to life, to physical and moral integrity, to a good name, to image, to freedom, to the protection of intimacy are consecrated constitutionally (articles 24, 25, 26) and in civil law (articles 70 and 484 of the Civil Code).
Due to the fact that all of these rights are constitutionally protected, in principle none of them raises above the others, and – in its practical exercise – each one of them should cede as strictly necessary and in a proportional way, in order to accommodate the adequate practice of the rest of them.
Necessity, proportionality and adequacy are the fundamental principles for the practical conjugation of the concrete exercise of said rights; therefore, the rules that are to be respected must be set case by case, thus allowing to decide which conflicting rights must be compressed, what limits have to be observed and what dominant rights must be protected.
And it is through a cautious pondering of the rights at hand that we will be able to extract some conclusions concerning this specific case.
The book that was written by the first defendant, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, presents a thesis that was at one time defended by several participants in the police investigation: that little Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents, here the first applicants, were suspected of concealing the cadaver.
This defendant was the Coordinating Inspector of the investigation into the case of the disappearance, thus being the most qualified police officer who intervened in the investigation until the time when, through a decision from the Judiciary Police’s (PJ) directory, he was removed from that function.
In that role, the defendant was deeply involved in the entire investigation and had the opportunity to formulate all of the possible conclusions about the case, while it was under investigation.
Approximately 5 months later, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral was removed from the investigation through a decision of the PJ’s directory.
As he clarifies several times throughout the book, the author felt the need to write it right away in order to, as he says, “recover my good name, which was publicly dragged through the mud while the institution that I served for 26 years, the Portuguese Judiciary Police, did not allow me to defend myself, nor defended me institutionally. I asked for permission to speak out in that sense, a request that remains unanswered to this day. I fully respected the PJ’s rules, and remained in silence. Nevertheless, said silence was tearing my dignity apart.
Later on, I was removed from the investigation. I then decided that it was time for me to defend myself in a public way. Therefore, I immediately requested my retirement, so I could regain the plenitude of my freedom of expression.”
This is a first point – and one that is not small – that should be registered: the author feels he is the victim of injustice and wants to reestablish the truth, at least his truth or his vision of truth, even more so as he felt that his honour was being diminished and the police force that he owed obedience to did not allow him to reply, as a police officer, to those attacks against his professional pride and his honour as a qualified criminal investigation police officer.
In the book that is at stake here – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – the author presents a vast multiplicity of facts and then offers his interpretation of said facts.
Those facts are all part of the investigation and are exhaustively considered and weighed in the archiving dispatch of the process that is on the DVD that has been appended to this court case (page 441).
In that description, there are main facts and others that are secondary, but which the author attributes value to, based on his experience as a police investigator, an activity that he has performed for 26 years.
So, from that extensive cite, what do you pick out specifically that gives you the impression that overturning the injunction on the book was a decision based on "libel"?
Here's what I picked out:
Its practical importance does not result from the capacity to solve conflicts of interest in an autonomous and definitive way, but rather from its usefulness in the anticipation of certain effects of judicial decisions, in the prevention of serious or hardly repairable violation of rights, in the prevention of financial damages or in the preservation of status quo, until the final decision on the case is issued.
-
So, from that extensive cite, what do you pick out specifically that gives you the impression that overturning the injunction on the book was a decision based on "libel"?
Here's what I picked out:
Its practical importance does not result from the capacity to solve conflicts of interest in an autonomous and definitive way, but rather from its usefulness in the anticipation of certain effects of judicial decisions, in the prevention of serious or hardly repairable violation of rights, in the prevention of financial damages or in the preservation of status quo, until the final decision on the case is issued.
It all sounds like gobbledy gook to me - think I'll wait for the judge's decision.
-
I posted the document because of the discussion about the libel case. I suppose you want me to move on because the document confirms that it was not a mish mash of the verdict and Amaral's deposition, as davel so wrongly stated.
The document is interesting ... I think ferryman has illustrated what I think is the most pertinent factor.
I do want you and everyone else with an interest, to move on ... but only insofar as Madeleine McCann's case has moved on.
-
The biggest difficulty Amaral should have is squaring the final chapter of his book with this, from the archiving dispatch:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
According to Amaral, the McCanns covered up the fact of her death, fabricated an "abduction" and launched a fraudulent fund in her name.
What chance does Amaral have?
And if this trial is not about libel, then "damages" for what?
-
He wrote that "for him and for the investigators who worked with me on the case until October 2007" Madeleine died in 5A, the parents hid the body and simulated an abduction.
-
He wrote that "for him and for the investigators who worked with me on the case until October 2007" Madeleine died in 5A, the parents hid the body and simulated an abduction.
Which is contradicted by the archiving dispatch and therefore libel.
-
He wrote that "for him and for the investigators who worked with me on the case until October 2007" Madeleine died in 5A, the parents hid the body and simulated an abduction.
So ferryman, what do you say to that ?
You can't expect to twist facts and get away with it, can you. 8)-)))
-
Which is contradicted by the archiving dispatch and therefore libel.
No it's not.
The crime is unknown.
Possibilities remain.
-
Which is contradicted by the archiving dispatch and therefore libel.
As stated in the "acordão", the archiving report is the opinion of the person who wrote it and another judge could have analysed the evidence in a different perspective and come to a totally different opinion. The archiving report is not the final decision on the case, it is another piece of evidence, according to what the judge said during the damages trial.
-
Which is contradicted by the archiving dispatch and therefore libel.
You are saying therefore that the report of Tavares de Almeida of 10 September 2007 is libellous because it contradicts the archiving report, because that is what Gonçalo Amaral was quoting.
BTW, the quote states also that they believed that Madeleine died in a tragic accident in the apartment.
-
No it's not.
The crime is unknown.
Possibilities remain.
The archiving dispatch makes plain that the McCanns are not considered suspects in any crime against Madeleine.
All that could change that is new information coming to light since the shelved investigation that implicates Kate or Gerry.
None has.
Obfuscation and sleight-of-hand by Montclair.
New information could come to light to implicate the McCanns.
None has.
At the point of the archiving dispatch the McCanns were considered innocent of any crime.
Yet more obfuscation by Montclair.
The interim report was incompetent.
Simple as that.
The final report written by Joao Carlos supersedes it.
-
The archiving dispatch makes plain that the McCanns are not considered suspects in any crime against Madeleine.
All that could change that is new information coming to light since the shelved investigation that implicates Kate or Gerry.
None has.
Obfuscation and sleight-of-hand by Montclair.
New information could come to light to implicate the McCanns.
None has.
At the point of the archiving dispatch the McCanns were considered innocent of any crime.
Yet more obfuscation by Montclair.
The interim report was incompetent.
Simple as that.
The final report written by Joao Carlos supersedes it.
AFAIK, no new information has come to light to eliminate them either from the disappearance of their daughter.
-
The archiving dispatch makes plain that the McCanns are not considered suspects in any crime against Madeleine.
All that could change that is new information coming to light since the shelved investigation that implicates Kate or Gerry.
None has.
Obfuscation and sleight-of-hand by Montclair.
New information could come to light to implicate the McCanns.
None has.
At the point of the archiving dispatch the McCanns were considered innocent of any crime.
Yet more obfuscation by Montclair.
The interim report was incompetent.
Simple as that.
The final report written by Joao Carlos supersedes it.
As the crime is unknown and nobody has been charged, pray tell me who has been cleared of a crime they haven't been charged with ?
-
Montclair, yesterday you wrote: "Furthermore, the judges ruled that the McCanns personal rights and good name were not damaged".
So, that being the case why is this a damages trial then? Please explain. What does the word "damages" mean exactly? Can you be awarded damages when no damage has been found to have been caused? I really think you need to address this point for us plebs so that we can understand what you're on about.
-
Excellent question.
I think, in a sense, this is a damages trial, but because libel has been, either established or admitted, and the purpose of continued proceedings is to determine damage arising from proven or admitted libel.
Where has libel been established or admitted ?
The crime type remains unknown.
-
There can be no damages trial without damage having been legally established, unless I am very much mistaken. Still waiting for Montclaire to clear that one up.
-
There can be no damages trial without damage having been legally established, unless I am very much mistaken. Still waiting for Montclaire to clear that one up.
Yep ...
-
Libel has not been legally established despite your claims. You have not been able to prove that the courts have ruled the book and documentary libelous and it is in the courts where this decision is made, not in your posts. Don't ask me anymore, I'm tired of your refusal to understand.
-
Libel has not been legally established despite your claims. You have not been able to prove that the courts have ruled the book and documentary libelous and it is in the courts where this decision is made, not in your posts. Don't ask me anymore, I'm tired of your refusal to understand.
Where do the damages come into it then? Damages for what?
-
Where do the damages come into it then? Damages for what?
Bearing in mind that it is a different legal system, contemplate this scenario, Fred is an ex-con with spent convictions going for a job. Bill knows that Fred is an ex-con and parades outside Fred's prospective place of work with a sandwich board saying Fred is an ex-con. Fred doesn't get the job. Bill hasn't committed an offence but caused damage to Fred.
-
I'm interested in this excerpt from the judgment:
The book that was written by the first defendant, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, presents a thesis that was at one time defended by several participants in the police investigation: that little Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents, here the first applicants, were suspected of concealing the cadaver.
It rather implies that the thesis has since been discarded by the PJ does it not?
-
Bearing in mind that it is a different legal system, contemplate this scenario, Fred is an ex-con with spent convictions going for a job. Bill knows that Fred is an ex-con and parades outside Fred's prospective place of work with a sandwich board saying Fred is an ex-con. Fred doesn't get the job. Bill hasn't committed an offence but caused damage to Fred.
I think Bill probably has committed an offence. I'm sure he could be done for something! @)(++(*
-
What about if Bill believed that Fred was an ex-con but didn't have the proof that he was, and then put on his sandwich board outside Fred's place of work? what then?
-
What about if Bill believed that Fred was an ex-con but didn't have the proof that he was, and then put on his sandwich board outside Fred's place of work? what then?
It has already been proved in court that he was...
-
It has already been proved in court that he was...
How is that the same as the McCann case then? They have not been proven guilty of any crime.
-
What you seem to be suggesting is that, in Portugal, Bill could wear a placard stating that Fred is an ex-con and stand outside Fred's place of work and that would be perfectly legal, even if Fred wasn't actually an ex-con? Am I understanding you correctly?
-
Your analogy is all wrong, Bill = Amaral, Fred = the McCanns, yes?
I am talking about the difference between libel and damages.
-
What you seem to be suggesting is that, in Portugal, Bill could wear a placard stating that Fred is an ex-con and stand outside Fred's place of work and that would be perfectly legal, even if Fred wasn't actually an ex-con? Am I understanding you correctly?
No.
-
No.
then you're going to have to explain again sorry.
-
then you're going to have to explain again sorry.
All I have done is put forward a situation in which someone could feasibly claim damages from someone who hasn't done anything against the law.
-
All I have done is put forward a situation in which someone could feasibly claim damages from someone who hasn't done anything against the law.
Can you explain why you think the situation in which Bill carries a placard accusing Fred of being an ex-con without proof would not be legal in Portugal but that if he (for example) wrote down his suspicions about Fred in a bestselling book and appeared on numerous TV programmes to promulgate his "thesis" that that would be perfectly legal?
-
Simple question. If this is a favourable outcome for the McCanns will the book be once again withdrawn from sale? Is that on the table in this trial?
-
Simple question. If this is a favourable outcome for the McCanns will the book be once again withdrawn from sale? Is that on the table in this trial?
just looked at a large bookshop in Porto and the book is not available...vida se defensa...another book by him is
-
Oh interesting. Thought it was back on the shelves for the time being after he won the appeal...
-
Oh interesting. Thought it was back on the shelves for the time being after he won the appeal...
As far as I'm aware, it was. However, I doubt that there will be a reprint.
-
The fund holds a lot of money, but isn't doing anything to make a profit so doesn't pay any tax.
One might infer from your last two posts that you were suggesting that the Fund is being used as a tax avoidance scheme, of course I'm sure that wasn't your intention at all.
-
So has anyone seen corroboration of Martin Brunt's tweet that the libel trial is due to resume next week, with a result expected to be announced in February?
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/539482169455149056
-
So has anyone seen corroboration of Martin Brunt's tweet that the libel trial is due to resume next week, with a result expected to be announced in February?
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/539482169455149056
Yes, the final allegations by the lawyers are to be given on Wednesday, 10 December, and the session begins at 9h00.
-
Yes, the final allegations by the lawyers are to be given on Wednesday, 10 December, and the session begins at 9h00.
So both the libel trial and Brenda Leyland's inquest resume on Wednesday. Interesting times ahead I think !
-
So both the libel trial and Brenda Leyland's inquest resume on Wednesday. Interesting times ahead I think !
The final allegations in the trial are on Wednesday, 10 December and Brenda Leyland's inquest is on Thursday 18 December.
-
The final allegations in the trial are on Wednesday, 10 December and Brenda Leyland's inquest is on Thursday 18 December.
Was the date of the resumption of the libel trial publicised anywhere?
-
Was the date of the resumption of the libel trial publicised anywhere?
I don't know.
-
I don't know.
So where did you get your information?
-
So if Montclaire is right, it all kicks off again tomorrow.
Has anyone seen any reports apart from Martin Brunt's tweet?
-
No. Do you think the UK media will be very interested in reporting it?
-
No. Do you think the UK media will be very interested in reporting it?
Probably not because it will only be the lawyers giving their final allegations.
-
I did read in one of the newspapers, that the trial resumes on Wed 10th dec.
I am not sure that the McCanns will need to be present though, as the decision is not likely yet.
It will be final argument time only IMO.
-
But Mr Pike told the court: “It was an indicator of how she felt rather than something she ever intended to do.”
I can understand why the mother of a missing child could be distressed enough to go for a swim and just keep on swimming.
Few have been subject to the added trauma that Dr McCann has.
In fact I can't think of a single case of the lead detective in a failed investigation writing a book to reinforce an improbable thesis for which there is no evidence ... but to ensure that the parents of a missing child against whom there is not a shred of evidence ... are implicated in an associated crime.
IMO I think Dr Amaral should have gone for settlement some time ago before the flaws in his theory became exposed.
The fact that the new PJ and SY investigation are questioning witnesses and suspects known to each other but not to the McCanns and their friends indicate where the judgement should go in the real world.
We shall just have to contain ourselves till February ... maybe March ... maybe ... oh well whenever ... to see where the evidence presented in court will take the learned Judge.
-
But Mr Pike told the court: “It was an indicator of how she felt rather than something she ever intended to do.”
I can understand why the mother of a missing child could be distressed enough to go for a swim and just keep on swimming.
Few have been subject to the added trauma that Dr McCann has.
In fact I can't think of a single case of the lead detective in a failed investigation writing a book to reinforce an improbable thesis for which there is no evidence ... but to ensure that the parents of a missing child against whom there is not a shred of evidence ... are implicated in an associated crime.
IMO I think Dr Amaral should have gone for settlement some time ago before the flaws in his theory became exposed.
The fact that the new PJ and SY investigation are questioning witnesses and suspects known to each other but not to the McCanns and their friends indicate where the judgement should go in the real world.
We shall just have to contain ourselves till February ... maybe March ... maybe ... oh well whenever ... to see where the evidence presented in court will take the learned Judge.
If he had, wouldn't that have hampered his numerous guest appearances on TV?
Whatever the judge rules, it's bound to go to appeal...
-
If he had, wouldn't that have hampered his numerous guest appearances on TV?
Whatever the judge rules, it's bound to go to appeal...
I'm far from convinced about that, you know.
For there to be an appeal, there has to be a basis of appeal.
Particularly as Amaral (via his own lawyer) admitted that Madeleine could be alive, right at the outset of proceedings, what possible basis could there be?
I honestly just don't see it, even in a system as prone to allowing appeals as the Portuguese system is ...
-
I did read in one of the newspapers, that the trial resumes on Wed 10th dec.
I am not sure that the McCanns will need to be present though, as the decision is not likely yet.
It will be final argument time only IMO.
Which paper was that, Anna?
Do you remember?
-
According to the Independent, today -
"This week, Mr and Mrs McCann will also hear final speeches from lawyers involved in a £1million libel action brought by the couple against former Portuguese Mr Amaral over claims he made in his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie."
Wording suggests they might be there in court, but of course, that may not be so at all.
-
According to the Independent, today -
"This week, Mr and Mrs McCann will also hear final speeches from lawyers involved in a £1million libel action brought by the couple against former Portuguese Mr Amaral over claims he made in his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie."
Wording suggests they might be there in court, but of course, that may not be so at all.
Thank you.
-
Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, December 10, 2014
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/12/mccanns-complaint-in-final-allegations.html
"In a statement to JN on the trial that has lasted five years, the former PJ coordinator considers that the couple's goal, apart from an eventual monetary compensation, is to “convert the trial in an exoneration of their own responsibilities in the disappearance of their daughter”. And he justifies his opinion stating that “throughout these last five years they have attempted to convey the idea that this trial is about their innocence, when legally that is not what is at stake” since what is being argued at the trial is the “lawfulness or unlawfulness of the book I wrote and, and if so, whether it is possible to establish a causality link between the book and the possible damages they allege to have suffered”."
-
Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, December 10, 2014
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/12/mccanns-complaint-in-final-allegations.html
"In a statement to JN on the trial that has lasted five years, the former PJ coordinator considers that the couple's goal, apart from an eventual monetary compensation, is to “convert the trial in an exoneration of their own responsibilities in the disappearance of their daughter”. And he justifies his opinion stating that “throughout these last five years they have attempted to convey the idea that this trial is about their innocence, when legally that is not what is at stake” since what is being argued at the trial is the “lawfulness or unlawfulness of the book I wrote and, and if so, whether it is possible to establish a causality link between the book and the possible damages they allege to have suffered”."
Cough, cough. And who was it who was at one point looking forward to them suing him so that he could see them in court?
However, I agree that it is actually about the: “lawfulness or unlawfulness of the book I wrote and, and if so, whether it is possible to establish a causality link between the book and the possible damages they allege to have suffered”."
-
As outrageous as I find his spoutings, I'm not convinced that the McCanns will win. It would be a no-brainer if the case were in the UK, but it's Portuguese law that has to be applied.
Whatever the initial outcome, it's likely to drag on for another 10 years via the appeal process at this rate.
-
As outrageous as I find his spoutings, I'm not convinced that the McCanns will win. It would be a no-brainer if the case were in the UK, but it's Portuguese law that has to be applied.
Whatever the initial outcome, it's likely to drag on for another 10 years via the appeal process at this rate.
I think the appeals process will last as long as there remains money in the fund. After that who knows !
-
As outrageous as I find his spoutings, I'm not convinced that the McCanns will win. It would be a no-brainer if the case were in the UK, but it's Portuguese law that has to be applied.
Whatever the initial outcome, it's likely to drag on for another 10 years via the appeal process at this rate.
They were the architect of their own demise in the public opinion stakes. If they lose let's hope they have deep pockets. 8(0(*
-
If they lose (which I've no doubt they will) I hope they rise above the crowing and gloating and put it behind them. Things have move on considerably from when they started their action, and in a positive direction for the case. There's no point wasting more money trying to get justice in Portugal, it's a bizarre system if you ask me, (which you didn't).
-
They were the architect of their own demise in the public opinion stakes. If they lose let's hope they have deep pockets. 8(0(*
I'd agree that Amaral with his book / "documentary" wasn't the sole contributor (which makes it hard to quantify), but he was certainly a major one. I found his later spoutings in the media far worse, although the interviewers / voiceovers often made the salacious claims, but which he didn't correct. There is also the fact that 99% of the half-baked leaks were under his watch, but it would be virtually impossible to prove who actually leaked (bar one interview in which he asked to remain anonymous, but was named anyway).
-
If they lose (which I've no doubt they will) I hope they rise above the crowing and gloating and put it behind them. Things have move on considerably from when they started their action, and in a positive direction for the case. There's no point wasting more money trying to get justice in Portugal, it's a bizarre system if you ask me, (which you didn't).
I think you are one of the few people who agree with me that they might lose (at least in the first instance). However, I've slightly come back on that since Murat won his case against CdaM (albeit on appeal). A difference, perhaps, is that journalists (and press editors) have clearly established duties and Amaral doesn't qualify as one. On the other hand, his former position gives him more "credibility" than the village idiot on a soapbox.
Murat received a tiny amount, not because that was the estimated value of his reputation, but because it was impossible to quantify the damage caused.
A problem with PT law (if I've understood how it works) is that civil libel isn't different to any other civil liability case. If you smash someone's window, then the damage is limited to the costs involved. You produce bills to show how much the window cost to replace and that's it.
ETA:
A different point is that the crows will suddenly forget that the case concerns Portuguese legislation and will immediately assume that UK libel laws applied - i.e., that everything he's written / said was true and accurate, when that isn't how it works at all.
But yes, I agree that the search for what happened to their daughter has moved on since those days, but the McCanns weren't to know that at the time. On the other hand, a large percentage of those knitting in front of their TVs watching Júlia's pink couch matinée shows are no doubt still convinced that Amaral is a hero, thwarted by perfidious Albion. They will never read the files, nor keep a look out for her.
-
Which paper was that, Anna?
Do you remember?
Sorry, Ferryman,
I missed your post. No I cant remember where I read it, but it will be in the link below.... somewhere.
I have looked, but I am rather, short of time right now.
This link is a good fast way, to get the latest too.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/forum37.html
-
I'd agree that Amaral with his book / "documentary" wasn't the sole contributor (which makes it hard to quantify), but he was certainly a major one. I found his later spoutings in the media far worse, although the interviewers / voiceovers often made the salacious claims, but which he didn't correct. There is also the fact that 99% of the half-baked leaks were under his watch, but it would be virtually impossible to prove who actually leaked (bar one interview in which he asked to remain anonymous, but was named anyway).
Amarals thesis is still as valid as any other and until it is finally proven what happened to Maddie is likely to remain so.
-
Amarals thesis is still as valid as any other and until it is finally proven what happened to Maddie is likely to remain so.
If it were valid, why are there so many conspiracy theories along the lines that "he's right... but..."?
Murat won his case (on appeal) despite the fact that she still hasn't been found.
-
Amarals thesis is still as valid as any other and until it is finally proven what happened to Maddie is likely to remain so.
As valid as any other? Really?
-
I have yet to find anyone who finds his "thesis" workable, let alone work in the reality of the forensics and the dogs which he either genuinely didn't understand, or chose not to.
-
If it were valid, why are there so many conspiracy theories along the lines that "he's right... but..."?
Murat won his case (on appeal) despite the fact that she still hasn't been found.
Because people tend to disagree over the details.
The only people who consistently sing from the same hymn sheet are those who support the McCanns.
-
Because people tend to disagree over the details.
The only people who consistently sing from the same hymn sheet are those who support the McCanns.
Details? The total misinterpretation of the forensic results is a "detail"?
I find that the people who consistently sing from the same hymn sheet are those who happily regurgitate long-dismissed myths from 2007. Why do they do this when they claim to have read the files?
-
Details? The total misinterpretation of the forensic results is a "detail"?
I find that the people who consistently sing from the same hymn sheet are those who happily regurgitate long-dismissed myths from 2007. Why do they do this when they claim to have read the files?
Only one of many details.
-
Only one of many details.
LOL Jassi. I could interpret that as meaning that that is only one of the many details that he's got totally wrong, but I doubt that that is what you meant...
-
Sorry, Ferryman,
I missed your post. No I cant remember where I read it, but it will be in the link below.... somewhere.
I have looked, but I am rather, short of time right now.
This link is a good fast way, to get the latest too.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/forum37.html
Hi Anna.
Earlier, a quote (but not the link) was provided from which I was able to track down the link to The Independent that, indeed, refers to court proceedings: right at the end of this link.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-investigation-scotland-yard-fly-to-portugal-to-observe-new-questioning-9911764.html
This week, Mr and Mrs McCann will also hear final speeches from lawyers involved in a £1million libel action brought by the couple against former Portuguese Mr Amaral over claims he made in his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie.
-
LOL Jassi. I could interpret that as meaning that that is only one of the many details that he's got totally wrong, but I doubt that that is what you meant...
No, it wasn't, but as we don't know what happened that night, we have no way of knowing which details may be right and which ones may be wrong- (excluding the limited forensics)
-
Because people tend to disagree over the details.
The only people who consistently sing from the same hymn sheet are those who support the McCanns.
No they don't. Some of us think Madeleine may still be alive, some are convinced she is dead. Some think she was stolen to order, others that it was an opportunist crime. Some believe the PJ deliberately set out to frame the McCanns, others don't. Some believe the intruder may have entered and exited by the window, others think by the door or a combination of both. There's lots of details we disagree on. What we all agree on however is that Amaral wasn't very good at his job.
-
I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that some of you accepted that she was dead. I thought you all believed she was alive and well, happily living in LaLa land.
-
... What we all agree on ...
Really? That is news to me.
-
I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that some of you accepted that she was dead. I thought you all believed she was alive and well, happily living in LaLa land.
I think you're confusing hope with belief there. Most people are realistic in accepting that she is probably dead, even, I suspect, her parents. But until it is known for sure, there is still hope that she is alive. This has always been the case, since day 1, and remains the case seven years later.
-
If they lose (which I've no doubt they will) I hope they rise above the crowing and gloating and put it behind them. Things have move on considerably from when they started their action, and in a positive direction for the case. There's no point wasting more money trying to get justice in Portugal, it's a bizarre system if you ask me, (which you didn't).
I seldom disagree with Alfred.
But I do on this occasion.
I think Amaral conceded defeat at the point his (then latest in a long line) of (sacked) lawyers, Santos, began proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to "protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive"
I think that also makes sense of the otherwise risible notion that the trial is a "damages" trial.
I think it is, indeed, a trial to assess damage arising from either proven or admitted libel.
That is why I also do not see the saga protracted by endless and interminable appeals.
I think libel has been, either established or admitted, and the only question at issue is what damages are fitting for the damage that has caused, both to the McCanns reputation and (most important!) to the search for Madeleine.
I think the best Amaral can hope for is that learned Portuguese judges will award the McCanns damages less than those sought by the McCanns, in which case the McCanns will have to pay Amaral's expenses, as well as their own.
-
On what date will the presentation of final arguments be completed?
-
On what date will the presentation of final arguments be completed?
And in which century? ...
-
So would it now be prohibited for either side to introduce new evidence?
-
I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that some of you accepted that she was dead. I thought you all believed she was alive and well, happily living in LaLa land.
I've stated many times on this forum that I think she is likely dead. I haven't accepted that she IS dead though. I think there is a (very slim) possibility that she may be alive. Your comment is cheap and a little bit spiteful IMO. Why do you have to belittle those who hope for a positive outcome in this case?
-
Really? That is news to me.
I have no idea what you believe so you weren't included in my sweeping statement. But as a rule most McCann supporters (I presume you are not one!) don't think too highly of Amaral's professional capabilities. Do you dispute this?
-
I seldom disagree with Alfred.
But I do on this occasion.
I think Amaral conceded defeat at the point his (then latest in a long line) of (sacked) lawyers, Santos, began proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to "protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive"
I think that also makes sense of the otherwise risible notion that the trial is a "damages" trial.
I think it is, indeed, a trial to assess damage arising from either proven or admitted libel.
That is why I also do not see the saga protracted by endless and interminable appeals.
I think libel has been, either established or admitted, and the only question at issue is what damages are fitting for the damage that has caused, both to the McCanns reputation and (most important!) to the search for Madeleine.
I think the best Amaral can hope for is that learned Portuguese judges will award the McCanns damages less than those sought by the McCanns, in which case the McCanns will have to pay Amaral's expenses, as well as their own.
My understanding is that the McCanns are suing Amaral for libel damages, that they have done so and have been encouraged to do so (perhaps?) despite the fact that the book was adjudged not to be libellous under Portuguese Law (don't ask me why, that's just PT law for you,) an action they took at a time when they were desperate to get the case into their daughter's disappearance re-looked at by the authorities in Portugal. They knew that all the while the Portuguese were convinced that Amaral's version of events was correct that they didn't stand a hope in hell of this ever happening, so this was their best chance to get people in PT to re-think the case, to be more vigilant to the fact that Madeleine may still be alive and not so certain that she is dead (as Amaral has always vigorously campaigned).
One can understand why they took this action, but I think it was high risk, and now we have moved on, the PT authorities ARE looking at alternative theories to the 'parents dunnit' theory and the Met are on board too, so victory in this libel case is now less essential to them to the prospect of resolving the case of missing Madeleine. Their likely defeat will give the "sceptics" much to rejoice over, but the thrill of victory and the opportunity for huge amounts of online gloating is pretty much all it will give them. Their ultimate fantasy of seeing the McCanns locked up will still be as far away and unlikely to be realised as ever.
-
My understanding is that the McCanns are suing Amaral for libel damages, that they have done so and have been encouraged to do so (perhaps?) despite the fact that the book was adjudged not to be libellous under Portuguese Law (don't ask me why, that's just PT law for you,) an action they took at a time when they were desperate to get the case into their daughter's disappearance re-looked at by the authorities in Portugal. They knew that all the while the Portuguese were convinced that Amaral's version of events was correct that they didn't stand a hope in hell of this ever happening, so this was their best chance to get people in PT to re-think the case, to be more vigilant to the fact that Madeleine may still be alive and not so certain that she is dead (as Amaral has always vigorously campaigned).
One can understand why they took this action, but I think it was high risk, and now we have moved on, the PT authorities ARE looking at alternative theories to the 'parents dunnit' theory and the Met are on board too, so victory in this libel case is now less essential to them to the prospect of resolving the case of missing Madeleine. Their likely defeat will give the "sceptics" much to rejoice over, but the thrill of victory and the opportunity for huge amounts of online gloating is pretty much all it will give them. Their ultimate fantasy of seeing the McCanns locked up will still be as far away and unlikely to be realised as ever.
I've read the whole of your post, but wanted to focus on the bit I underline, which isn't quite right.
Libel has not been judged at all in proceedings so far over the injunction on Amaral's book.
Rather, that was a dispute over conflicting guarantees of the Portuguese Constitution, one that guarantees freedom of expression; another that guarantees the right of citizens to a good name.
The first decision was that the McCanns' right to a good name should supersede Amaral's right to freedom of expression, upheld on (first) appeal; but overturned on subsequent appeal, in favour of Amaral's right to free speech.
That (ex-parte!) ruling also (perversely) found that Amaral's conclusion are solidly based on the case files (they are not)!
But until the (protracted) libel trial, the question of libel had simply not been considered, and (now) I firmly believe that the erroneousness of the final ruling on the injunction that Amaral's conclusions are based on the case-files has been completely exposed.
I am very hopeful that the result will go the McCanns' way; indeed, I believe that libel was conceded at the outset.
-
I've read the whole of your post, but wanted to focus on the bit I underline, which isn't quite right.
Libel has not been judged at all in proceedings so far over the injunction on Amaral's book.
Rather, that was a dispute over conflicting guarantees of the Portuguese Constitution, one that guarantees freedom of expression; another that guarantees the right of citizens to a good name.
The first decision was that the McCanns' right to a good name should supersede Amaral's right to freedom of expression, upheld on (first) appeal; but overturned on subsequent appeal, in favour of Amaral's right to free speech.
That (ex-parte!) ruling also (perversely) found that Amaral's conclusion are solidly based on the case files (they are not)!
But until the (protracted) libel trial, the question of libel had simply not been considered, and (now) I firmly believe that the erroneousness of the final ruling on the injunction that Amaral's conclusions are based on the case-files has been completely exposed.
I am very hopeful that the result will go the McCanns' way; indeed, I believe that libel was conceded at the outset.
That being the case what have they been discussing in court for the last 5 years? The size of the pay-out?
-
That being the case what have they been discussing in court for the last 5 years? The size of the pay-out?
In between Amaral's prevarications and delays, yes, I believe so ...
-
Have you read anything about payout in the court proceedings?
-
Have you read anything about payout in the court proceedings?
I am not conversant with the fine details of payouts, but I am aware that, generally, they are a lot lower in Portugal than in the UK.
-
My understanding is that the McCanns are suing Amaral for libel damages, that they have done so and have been encouraged to do so (perhaps?) despite the fact that the book was adjudged not to be libellous under Portuguese Law (don't ask me why, that's just PT law for you,) an action they took at a time when they were desperate to get the case into their daughter's disappearance re-looked at by the authorities in Portugal. They knew that all the while the Portuguese were convinced that Amaral's version of events was correct that they didn't stand a hope in hell of this ever happening, so this was their best chance to get people in PT to re-think the case, to be more vigilant to the fact that Madeleine may still be alive and not so certain that she is dead (as Amaral has always vigorously campaigned).
One can understand why they took this action, but I think it was high risk, and now we have moved on, the PT authorities ARE looking at alternative theories to the 'parents dunnit' theory and the Met are on board too, so victory in this libel case is now less essential to them to the prospect of resolving the case of missing Madeleine. Their likely defeat will give the "sceptics" much to rejoice over, but the thrill of victory and the opportunity for huge amounts of online gloating is pretty much all it will give them. Their ultimate fantasy of seeing the McCanns locked up will still be as far away and unlikely to be realised as ever.
Excellent summation, Alfred; I freely admit to puzzlement over the conduct of this case, how it could have dragged on for so long is beyond me. If this is the norm for cases in Portugal, no wonder they were so keen to overhaul the system.
IMO Madeleine's family are probably much less concerned about the outcome of this case than they are about the possibility of at last finding out what happened to their daughter.
They have indeed achieved the impossible of having Madeleine's case reopened with both Portuguese and British law enforcement conducting inquiries.
In succeeding in doing that they have indeed already won a victory as it demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that Dr Amaral's thesis is considered to be wrong in its entirety.
It remains to be seen what the learned judge decides, but Alfred's posts sums up exactly where any decision now rates in the sphere of today's events.
-
If costs are awarded to Amaral I presume those will be coming from the fund ?
If the McCanns simply wanted to stop the book being read why not just stop at an injunction ? Why the need for damages ?
-
If costs are awarded to Amaral I presume those will be coming from the fund ?
If the McCanns simply wanted to stop the book being read why not just stop at an injunction ? Why the need for damages ?
they want to stop amaral profiting from the book
-
If costs are awarded to Amaral I presume those will be coming from the fund ?
If the McCanns simply wanted to stop the book being read why not just stop at an injunction ? Why the need for damages ?
The injunction was (as is often the case) to prevent further alleged damage, pending the trial proper.
-
If costs are awarded to Amaral I presume those will be coming from the fund ?
If the McCanns simply wanted to stop the book being read why not just stop at an injunction ? Why the need for damages ?
Did the McCanns succeed in stopping the book being read? Prior to the case being re-opened damages would have been useful in keeping the private investigation going, now not so much. And then there is the principle. Amaral hurt them, hurt the prospects of Madeleine being found (pretty much from Day 1) and profited from the hurt he caused so why shouldn't he be made to pay? I'd probably do exactly the same in their position.
-
The injunction was (as is often the case) to prevent further alleged damage, pending the trial proper.
If their main purpose was to stop the alleged damage to the search for their daughter why not simply have the book injuncted ? Why the need to punish Amaral financially ?
-
Excellent summation, Alfred; I freely admit to puzzlement over the conduct of this case, how it could have dragged on for so long is beyond me. If this is the norm for cases in Portugal, no wonder they were so keen to overhaul the system.
IMO Madeleine's family are probably much less concerned about the outcome of this case than they are about the possibility of at last finding out what happened to their daughter.
They have indeed achieved the impossible of having Madeleine's case reopened with both Portuguese and British law enforcement conducting inquiries.
In succeeding in doing that they have indeed already won a victory as it demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that Dr Amaral's thesis is considered to be wrong in its entirety.
It remains to be seen what the learned judge decides, but Alfred's posts sums up exactly where any decision now rates in the sphere of today's events.
Ah I see! I think; so the "libel" case was never about libel or damages it was a potential loss leader to raise awareness and have the archived investigation reopened?
-
If their main purpose was to stop the alleged damage to the search for their daughter why not simply have the book injuncted ? Why the need to punish Amaral financially ?
they want to stop amaral profiting from the book...and quite right they are too
-
Ah I see! I think; so the case was never about libel or damages it was a potential loss leader to raise awareness and have the case reopened?
no..try reading the post again...slowly
-
no..try reading the post again...slowly
Alas accuses others of putting words into his mouth and here he is doing exactly the same thing, the wee bezom.
-
no..try reading the post again...slowly
And?
It seems to me there is a bit of ground shifting going on "just in case", so if things go belly up in Lisbon it can presented as a win because the damages trial has now been superseded by events. That argument could have been applied over a year ago.
Just presenting a view from a different aspect. I am not saying it is right 8(>((
-
they want to stop amaral profiting from the book...and quite right they are too
And if Amaral wins and the costs awarded against the McCanns ? Who pays for them ?
-
And if Amaral wins and the costs awarded against the McCanns ? Who pays for them ?
Why would Amaral win?
He has the accused the McCanns of responsibility for Madeleine's death, concealing her body, fabricating an "abduction" and launching a fraudulent "appeal" in their daughter's name, and there is not a shred of evidence to support any of that.
-
And if Amaral wins and the costs awarded against the McCanns ? Who pays for them ?
This may help
1. What are the costs of legal proceedings and who normally has to pay them?
The costs of legal proceedings relate to the payment of costs and the fees of the legal representative (barrister, junior barrister or solicitor);
Costs include court fees and charges;
Court fees cover the payment by Court users for the public service of the administration of Justice; the amounts are set on the basis of a schedule which takes as a reference the monetary value of the case; in the case of appeals, the losing party pays the costs; incidental costs are separately taxed but depend on the value of the action;
Charges consist of the repayment of expenses advanced by the Court, payments to any organisations to cover the cost of certificates not produced officially by the Court, documents, opinions, drawings, other documentary evidence and services which the Court may have requested, payments due to those who have participated in the proceedings, including the legally set fees, travel expenses and assistance towards expenses, reimbursement of postal charges, telephone, telegraphs, faxing, electronic copies, reimbursement for acquisition of magnetic media necessary for recording the evidence and reimbursement to the successful party in the proceedings of its costs, as well as barristers’ fees;
The fees of legal representatives are set by the Court, which must, for this purpose, have due regard to the time spent, the difficulty of the matter, the importance of the service provided, the financial means of the interested parties, the results obtained by means of the lawsuit and the amounts applied, in similar situations, within the respective judicial district;
The responsibility for the payment of costs is based on the decision of the court in regard to the case tried, the costs being paid by the unsuccessful party or by the party that has benefited from the action;
Some proceedings are, by virtue of legal provisions, exempt from the payment of costs, as are some parties to proceedings;
The final court fees, in civil proceedings, are set on conclusion of the case; therefore, they are paid at intervals, one quarter being lodged at the time of presentation of the petition or initial claim, the defence or appeal; in the majority of actions, a subsequent court fee, of an amount equal to the initial court fee, is paid after notification of the date that has been set for the final hearing;
The amounts paid in respect of the initial court fees and the court fees subsequently paid by the successful party will be reimbursed to the latter together with any sums advanced to cover expenses.
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_aid/legal_aid_por_en.htm#1.
-
I am not sure why people are so interested in this libel thing. Of course Amaral was wrong. He was a professional and professionals don't publish their work data, if only for that he was wrong. This would mean any policeman in the world could do the same but they don't - because they cannot abuse their power.
It is same as if a doctor or a priest go out to talk about their patients or worshippers. They cannot do that, their job is to serve the society and they are aware of it.
This is where my interest in Amaral ends. If you add to it that he as a professional also has a criminal record, this is where all speculation should end. Criminal record, published work data.. in modern world this simply doesn't exist as positive..
-
I hear the defence wanted the couple to provide a detailed rundown of the fund's income but they refused.
Wouldn't that have been a very tangible way to prove that the book had damaged the search by affecting the donations used to fund it ?
-
I hear the defence wanted the couple to provide a detailed rundown of the fund's income but they refused.
Wouldn't that have been a very tangible way to prove that the book had damaged the search by affecting the donations used to fund it ?
no
-
no
Why not ?
-
I sincerely hope that somewhere along the line it was brought to the Judge's attention that people reading Amaral's book would be more likely to be influenced by it's contents - purely because they thought they were getting a first hand account of events - and had no idea that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life - and had only once met Gerry briefly.
IIRC Nowhere in his book does he admit that - infact IMO he deliberately conceals that most important piece of information from his readers.
-
I sincerely hope that somewhere along the line it was brought to the Judge's attention that people reading Amaral's book would be more likely to be influenced by it's contents - purely because they thought they were getting a first hand account of events - and had no idea that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life - and had only once met Gerry briefly.
IIRC Nowhere in his book does he admit that - infact IMO he deliberately conceals that most important piece of information from his readers.
A police officer is lead by the evidence not some subjective view he forms of suspects so why would it be necessary for Amaral to have met the McCanns ?
-
I sincerely hope that somewhere along the line it was brought to the Judge's attention that people reading Amaral's book would be more likely to be influenced by it's contents - purely because they thought they were getting a first hand account of events - and had no idea that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life - and had only once met Gerry briefly.
IIRC Nowhere in his book does he admit that - infact IMO he deliberately conceals that most important piece of information from his readers.
Having read small snippets ... I would think he is actually a reasonable fiction writer ... he appears by his own account to have been ubiquitous and present at everything that went on in the case.
Reading what he has written it came as a surprise to me ... that he had never met nor interviewed Madeleine's parents. I believe the first time he actually visited the scene was for the shooting of his documentary ... is that a fact?
I'm certain the learned judge will have worked out that a book written by the chief investigator in a case will carry much more weight than one by any other author could.
The damage done to the reputation of the accused and cleared couple as a result is immeasurable ... I think she will take that into account.
-
A police officer is lead by the evidence not some subjective view he forms of suspects so why would it be necessary for Amaral to have met the McCanns ?
One could say the same about a good author but that didn't stop you laying into Summers and Swann for the same reason.
-
Having read small snippets ... I would think he is actually a reasonable fiction writer ... he appears by his own account to have been ubiquitous and present at everything that went on in the case.
Reading what he has written it came as a surprise to me ... that he had never met nor interviewed Madeleine's parents. I believe the first time he actually visited the scene was for the shooting of his documentary ... is that a fact?
I'm certain the learned judge will have worked out that a book written by the chief investigator in a case will carry much more weight than one by any other author could.
The damage done to the reputation of the accused and cleared couple as a result is immeasurable ... I think she will take that into account.
He did visit PdL at some point in the early days. There's a video snapshot of him in the vicinity listening to officers while the yellow police tape was still up. I doubt that I'd be able to find it now.
In a poll that I'd forgotten about until I stumbled across it again the other day:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?53176-Portuguese-Press-%28Translations%29-No-Discussion/page17
Look at the difference between the percentages of PT versus UK households who were convinced of the McCannswhatdunnit scenario... And this was presumably in Sept 08.
Not all of that can be laid directly at Amaral's door, but I find it highly unlikely that the constant drip-feed of half-baked myths from the PJ under his watch and the fawning interviewers on matinée shows in which he made guest appearances, plus his own CdaM column, didn't contribute. It's not clear to me at the moment whether the "promo" tour is part of the actual suit or not, or whether it's limited to the effect of the contents of the book and the "documentary".
It remains to be seen whether his selective thinking is considered as reasonable freedom of expression or as cherry-picking from a former privileged position as an "experienced" investigator.
The legal issue in Portugal seems to be how to prove a causal link to damage and then how to quantify it (as in a generic civil liability case).
-
... I believe the first time he actually visited the scene was for the shooting of his documentary ... is that a fact? ...
Early in the investigation Mr Amaral visited the location and walked the streets nearby
-
Early in the investigation Mr Amaral visited the location and walked the streets nearby
I should have been more specific in my post. When I referred to the scene ... I meant the apartment Madeleine disappeared from, not really the adjacent area ... it was among one of the first things Rebelo did.
Carana remembers a scene with him in the street ... I wonder if that was when he saw Murat for the first time when he was leaving his villa.
-
I should have been more specific in my post. When I referred to the scene ... I meant the apartment Madeleine disappeared from, not really the adjacent area ... it was among one of the first things Rebelo did.
Carana remembers a scene with him in the street ... I wonder if that was when he saw Murat for the first time when he was leaving his villa.
He was definitely on the streets outside. I assume naturally he also went inside. Fairly obvious IMO.
-
A police officer is lead by the evidence not some subjective view he forms of suspects so why would it be necessary for Amaral to have met the McCanns ?
You've completely missed the point Faith - which was that no-one reading his book would have the slightest clue from it's content that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCan in his life - and had only briefly met Gerry once. In fact quite the opposite impression is given to his readers - and deliberately so IMO.
IMO that was dishonest.
-
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Libel_trial_Day10.pdf
And http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ricardo_Paiva_08_10_2013.htm
-
And http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ricardo_Paiva_08_10_2013.htm
For heavens sake don't tell Faithlilly....... 8(8-))
-
For heavens sake don't tell Faithlilly....... 8(8-))
I won't but someone will %£&)**#
-
And http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ricardo_Paiva_08_10_2013.htm
Ah!
Ricardo Paivia.
Just about the only Amaral-witness in the trial to display a spark of theMcCannsdunit spunk ...
-
You've completely missed the point Faith - which was that no-one reading his book would have the slightest clue from it's content that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCan in his life - and had only briefly met Gerry once. In fact quite the opposite impression is given to his readers - and deliberately so IMO.
IMO that was dishonest.
I haven't missed the point Benice and unless Amaral actually said he had met Kate I really don't the problem.
If you read Anthony Summers book you would also get the impression that he had spoken to many of the witnesses even though we know most of his information was taken from their police statements.
-
I haven't missed the point Benice and unless Amaral actually said he had met Kate I really don't the problem.
If you read Anthony Summers book you would also get the impression that he had spoken to many of the witnesses even though we know most of his information was taken from their police statements.
Q: What relationship do you have with the McCann couple?
I was the head of the department investigating the case within the PJ in Portimao. I was responsible for organising the work of the investigation and ensuring myself of following the direction of the investigation, and therefore I was with the couple once or twice as well as with all the witnesses and with inspectors working on the case. I do not want to discuss publicly with the McCanns, they have lost a daughter. Neither I, nor the parents are of interest, the only victim here is the little girl.
http://www.hola.com/actualidad/20080911656/entrevista/goncalo/amaral/1/
Translation found on: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?53176-Portuguese-Press-%28Translations%29-No-Discussion/page18&s=b7f6f0e6dcc1578e4054110d3c91eb05
-
Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.
The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?
PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?
GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.
PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.
GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…
JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?
GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…
Source, pending finding a live link:
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI
This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.
-
On the contrary. It is highly relevant.
Ex-parte judgments are used by all judicial systems (including in the UK) and the quality of justice they produce is frequently questionable.
At least in the UK, though, ex-parte judgments are only ever used in situations of dire emergency where matters of life or death (or something approaching as serious) are at stake.
The ex-parte judgment that overturned the injunction on Amaral's book was poorly considered and bad law, precisely because it so grievously misjudged the content of the book, as the subsequent libel trial has made plain.
Really?
Not to forget that the original injunction which prevented publication of "that book" was ex-parte.
So basically the argument is that the Portuguese judiciary are stupid and bent and don't know A from a bulls foot?
The full SP on the "libel" trial remains to be published and that which has been published has been translated by those whose abilities your compadres seek to trash with the suggestion the translations are unreliable in parts. A bit like the jolly old curates egg in fact.
-
Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.
The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?
PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?
GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.
PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.
GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…
JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?
GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…
Source, pending finding a live link:
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI
This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.
'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said 8(0(*
From the Appeal Court Judgement:
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).
-
'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said 8(0(*
From the Appeal Court Judgement:
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).
Thanks, but that wasn't the comment in question. It may have been removed if judged off topic on whichever thread it was on.
-
Really?
Not to forget that the original injunction which prevented publication of "that book" was ex-parte.
So basically the argument is that the Portuguese judiciary are stupid and bent and don't know A from a bulls foot?
The full SP on the "libel" trial remains to be published and that which has been published has been translated by those whose abilities your compadres seek to trash with the suggestion the translations are unreliable in parts. A bit like the jolly old curates egg in fact.
What I underline is half-true.
From the Pamalan site about the first judgment allowing the injunction:
This is a translation of the text of the Civil Court ruling that granted the temporary injunction on Goncalo Amaral's book, ‘Maddie – The Truth of the Lie', and the corresponding DVD. It was issued on the 9th of September, 2009. The numbered notes - are from astro, for clarification purposes only. It should also be recalled that this injunction was granted exclusively based on the evidence that was provided by the Applicants. The Defendants were only allowed to oppose the injunction after it had been granted
[/b]
There was a right of appeal on behalf of the respondents after the injunction had been granted (denied).
But it does seem as if the proceedings that led to original granting of the injunction did not include representation on behalf of Amaral and the other respondents.
-
Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.
The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?
PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?
GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.
PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.
GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…
JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?
GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…
Source, pending finding a live link:
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI
This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.
Reply 519 t'was dear old Alas who had this to say:
As I recall the appeal court upheld it [that book] was based on the facts in the archiving report with Dr Amaral forming his own valid conclusion from those facts. So how does the "made it all up" bit work then?
-
Another one of Alf's great revelations.
I had already posted 'twas I !
Some people are a bit slow I guess.
PMSL
-
deleted
-
Another one of Alf's great revelations.
I had already posted 'twas I !
Some people are a bit slow I guess.
PMSL
Carana wrote this:
Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.
You wrote this:
As I recall the appeal court upheld it [that book] was based on the facts in the archiving report with Dr Amaral forming his own valid conclusion from those facts. So how does the "made it all up" bit work then?
You claim there is a difference between what you said and what she said you said. So what is the difference?
-
Carana wrote this:
You wrote this:
You claim there is a difference between what you said and what she said you said. So what is the difference?
Merciful heavens you have taken me off ignore. Does this mean we are friends again? You know, Alf, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.
In answer to your question ; There is a subtle difference. Work it out for yourself.
-
Merciful heavens you have taken me off ignore. Does this mean we are friends again? You know, Alf, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.
In answer to your question ; There is a subtle difference. Work it out for yourself.
so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.
-
so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.
That is not really my concern old stick.
-
so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.
The way I am reading Alice's post is that Dr Amaral wrote his own interpretation of the report?
Do correct me if I've got that wrong, because it would suggest to me duplicity not error on his part if that is what you are saying.
-
But how was he able to do so if he never read it in the first place? &%+((£
-
You appear to be ignoring my original post re what Fatima Esteves apparently said and what the Appeal Court said.
Now if you wish to discuss my post on that topic fine. If you wish to play silly b*****s deal me out.
-
'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said 8(0(*
From the Appeal Court Judgement:
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).
That doesn't mean it's a fair account, though, does it?
It sounds like saying we haven't found any flowers that aren't green. Well, possibly not, if you only consider the leaves.
There are also quite a few points touted as fact in the book that aren't in the legal summary - nor anywhere in the files, for that matter.
Did any of Amaral's witnesses state that they had read the book, watched the documentary and read the files? Someone must have done, surely... but no on jumps to mind for the moment.
-
That doesn't mean it's a fair account, though, does it?
It sounds like saying we haven't found any flowers that aren't green. Well, possibly not, if you only consider the leaves.
There are also quite a few points touted as fact in the book that aren't in the legal summary - nor anywhere in the files, for that matter.
Did any of Amaral's witnesses state that they had read the book, watched the documentary and read the files? Someone must have done, surely... but no on jumps to mind for the moment.
From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument. Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.
-
There appears to be some dubiety as to the exact status of lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso. Astro refers to him now as the McCann children's lawyer while Dra Isabel Duarte is referred to as the parent's lawyer. Anne Guedes on the other hand continues to refer to Afonso as Duarte's assistant. The latter would by implication infer that Alfonso is employed by Duarte.
Can anyone shed some light on this as it is important that only factual information is posted here? TY
-
From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument. Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.
First you would have to tell us what amaral's argument was...that is the crux.....my understanding was the injunction banning the book was overturned because there were no grounds to ban the book...libel at that point had not been proved and therefore there were no grounds to ban the book..
Some on here suggest that the libel/defamation issue has been decided by the court in amarals favour....I'm fairly sure it has not. All the Portuguese papers refer to the current trial as a defamation trial and I would expect them to know.
-
From my perspective the appeal court upheld Dr Amarals argument. Drs McCann appealed against that judgement to the Supreme Court which ruled the Appeal Courts judgement should be upheld. Drs McCann could have appealed to the European courts against the Supreme Court judgement however they chose not to. The courts have ruled and that is how it stands until overturned by a higher court.
Now whether you or I agree or disagree with that judgement is irrelevant.
The court ruling overturning the injunction posted on the Morais site has several serious errors...It states that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour on the keyfob. This is not factual and this sort of error leads me to believe that the reported judgement is not accurate
-
There appears to be some dubiety as to the exact status of lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso. Astro refers to him now as the McCann children's lawyer while Dra Isabel Duarte is referred to as the parent's lawyer. Anne Guedes on the other hand continues to refer to Afonso as Duarte's assistant. The latter would by implication infer that Alfonso is employed by Duarte.
Can anyone shed some light on this as it is important that only factual information is posted here? TY
Contradictions.....everywhere I looked. Afonso did stand in for Duarte at another hearing, but the extra note by Astra, who was in the courtroom on Wednesday, reveals that he had only found out that he was the children's Lawyer, on that day.
Only his half of the evidence on behalf of the children, was given and not Duarte's, as I understood it.
The press and blogs have a mixture of Children's lawyer on some and McCann's lawyer on others.
The children are McCann, so McCann's Lawyer is correct, in description.
This is Astro's forenote on Gerrymcannblog ....He was present in court
..........................................................
But first, a little detail that escaped me until today: Isabel Duarte is the lawyer for the McCann couple while Dr Ricardo Afonso is the lawyer for the children.
What does this mean? It means that we were going to be subject to allegations by Isabel for 1.5 hours and allegations by Ricardo Afonso for another 1.5 hours.
Isabel wasn't able to attend today's session, which means we only had to go through one half speeches. Still, Ricardo Afonso had to cut his allegations short by what I estimate was one-third as he ran out of time and the judge had to cut him short.
We got a different court room today, not the usual one. This one was less freezing... And on the wall, just above the judge, this quote: "A injustica feita a um é ameaca para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm
-
it seems that amarals book is out of print..i.e. no longer being published...it's about time some people woke up to the truth....the verdict will be here soon...amaral guilty of defamation...let's see how posters spin that one
-
Contradictions.....everywhere I looked. Afonso did stand in for Duarte at another hearing, but the extra note by Astra, who was in the courtroom on Wednesday, reveals that he had only found out that he was the children's Lawyer, on that day.
Only his half of the evidence on behalf of the children, was given and not Duarte's, as I understood it.
The press and blogs have a mixture of Children's lawyer on some and McCann's lawyer on others.
The children are McCann, so McCann's Lawyer is correct, in description.
This is Astro's forenote on Gerrymcannblog ....He was present in court
..........................................................
But first, a little detail that escaped me until today: Isabel Duarte is the lawyer for the McCann couple while Dr Ricardo Afonso is the lawyer for the children.
What does this mean? It means that we were going to be subject to allegations by Isabel for 1.5 hours and allegations by Ricardo Afonso for another 1.5 hours.
Isabel wasn't able to attend today's session, which means we only had to go through one half speeches. Still, Ricardo Afonso had to cut his allegations short by what I estimate was one-third as he ran out of time and the judge had to cut him short.
We got a different court room today, not the usual one. This one was less freezing... And on the wall, just above the judge, this quote: "A injustica feita a um é ameaca para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm)
Yes many contradictions.
Last year according to Anne Guedes he was the The McCann’s substitute lawyer,
I would say he is an associate by this.
Isabel Duarte & Associados-sociedade De Advogados Rl
I found this interesting
Here RCA is trying to show that neither Mark Harrison (who spoke of intelligence, nothing else), nor Martin Grime (who spoke of contamination, nothing else) nor Stuart Prior supported the decision to make the McCanns arguidos. He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in the McCann flat, examines the handler's report that, contrary to the book, says that no human residues were localised and interprets the unsupported evidence as intending to manipulate. The statements of the British experts were wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese investigators and the result was the arguido statute imposed on the McCanns, as it is suggested by the then head of the PJ, AlípioRibeiro.
-
Yes many contradictions.
Last year according to Anne Guedes he was the The McCann’s substitute lawyer,
I would say he is an associate by this.
Isabel Duarte & Associados-sociedade De Advogados Rl
I found this interesting
Here RCA is trying to show that neither Mark Harrison (who spoke of intelligence, nothing else), nor Martin Grime (who spoke of contamination, nothing else) nor Stuart Prior supported the decision to make the McCanns arguidos. He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in the McCann flat, examines the handler's report that, contrary to the book, says that no human residues were localised and interprets the unsupported evidence as intending to manipulate. The statements of the British experts were wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese investigators and the result was the arguido statute imposed on the McCanns, as it is suggested by the then head of the PJ, AlípioRibeiro.
Thank you, DCI.
So he is an associate of Duarte.
The other info is indeed very interesting.
-
it seems that amarals book is out of print..i.e. no longer being published...it's about time some people woke up to the truth....the verdict will be here soon...amaral guilty of defamation...let's see how posters spin that one
Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.
-
Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.
amaral has destroyed himself....convicted of complicity in the torture of a suspect....featured on the amnesty website...sacked from the investigation...open your eyes
-
Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.
Amaral is not a detective.
So your smartarse comment falls at the first hurdle.
-
Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fatuousness of your comparison?
How many ex-policemen have set out to destroy anyone (manifestly demonstrated to be innocent of any crime after exhaustive investigation of two years) in a best-selling book, sold in several countries of one continent?
-
Perhaps you are unaware of the fatuousness of your comparison?
How many ex-policemen have set out to destroy anyone (manifestly demonstrated to be innocent of any crime after exhaustive investigation of two years) in a best-selling book, sold in several countries of one continent?
Manifestly innocent ???
May I remind YET AGAIN, there has been insufficient evidence to charge anyone so far, and there is little prospect of any change.
...and Amaral did not set out to destroy the mccanns. That's what the mccanns have being trying to do.
'he deserves to be miserable and feel FEAR'
Ring any bells ferryman ?
-
Perhaps we could compare with some other cases where top PR and top lawyers have been paid to mount a destroy at all costs campaign against a detective? I think you will find your list is so short you are unable to post it.
Genuine question ... I have asked it before and never received a response.
Is there another case of the lead detective in a failed missing child inquiry ... writing an accusatory best selling book, allegedly based on the facts of the case, to implicate the child's parents in the disappearance and restore his 'honour'?
-
Genuine question ... I have asked it before and never received a response.
Is there another case of the lead detective in a failed missing child inquiry ... writing an accusatory best selling book, allegedly based on the facts of the case, to implicate the child's parents in the disappearance and restore his 'honour'?
' best selling book, '
Interesting choice of words.
'restore his honour' &%+((£
-
' best selling book, '
Interesting choice of words.
'restore his honour' &%+((£
why do you think the book is now out of print? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
with all the publicity of the libel case you would think people would be clamouring to buy it...probably because the publishers realise it's libellous... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Can't think of another case where a lead detective has published a book before trial but Amanda Knox had her own PR team though this was after she had been arrested...
-
Perhaps you are unaware of the fatuousness of your comparison?
How many ex-policemen have set out to destroy anyone (manifestly demonstrated to be innocent of any crime after exhaustive investigation of two years) in a best-selling book, sold in several countries of one continent?
I hadn't read down before I made my reply, which mirrors yours.
It bemuses me that so much weight is given to the word of a person who was in effect the architect of his own downfall long before the Drs McCann set foot in Portugal.
Expensive divorce, trying to defraud his brother over property, threats to an ex mistress and her family, defrauding the taxman, drunk driving with his daughter in the vehicle, expensively failed libel actions, what he saw as demotion to a desk job and a criminal conviction for perjury.
I think in 'The Truth of the Lie' we have an example not of 'trial by media' but an example of 'lynch law' in which the Drs McCann ... who along with Madeleine are the real victims here, have been tried and convicted of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance in a spiteful book.
That they had no option but to take action against that, is proven by posters here who ignore all evidence to the contrary and support the flawed theory outlined in the book nearly eight years down the line.
That such opinion harms the search for Madeleine? The negativity of the numerous tiresome FOI requests; the negative petitions; the opposition to Operation Grange and organised campaigns mounted such as trying to bring down the Missing People website and tying up the CW switchboard when the police were waiting to take calls which might have included information about Madeleine's case.
There is no mystery why this action had to be taken ... the only mystery is why it is still in the Portuguese courts so many years down the line.
SNAP! you beat me to it DCI
-
I hadn't read down before I made my reply, which mirrors yours.
It bemuses me that so much weight is given to the word of a person who was in effect the architect of his own downfall long before the Drs McCann set foot in Portugal.
Expensive divorce, trying to defraud his brother over property, threats to an ex mistress and her family, defrauding the taxman, drunk driving with his daughter in the vehicle, expensively failed libel actions, what he saw as demotion to a desk job and a criminal conviction for perjury.
I think in 'The Truth of the Lie' we have an example not of 'trial by media' but an example of 'lynch law' in which the Drs McCann ... who along with Madeleine are the real victims here, have been tried and convicted of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance in a spiteful book.
That they had no option but to take action against that, is proven by posters here who ignore all evidence to the contrary and support the flawed theory outlined in the book nearly eight years down the line.
That such opinion harms the search for Madeleine? The negativity of the numerous tiresome FOI requests; the negative petitions; the opposition to Operation Grange and organised campaigns mounted such as trying to bring down the Missing People website and tying up the CW switchboard when the police were waiting to take calls which might have included information about Madeleine's case.
There is no mystery why this action had to be taken ... the only mystery is why it is still in the Portuguese courts so many years down the line.
SNAP! you beat me to it DCI
LOL, Have you heard that recording of Amarals to Ana's husband, even in Portuguese it's hilarious, you can just picture him going purple in the face. 8()-000(
-
LOL, Have you heard that recording of Amarals to Ana's husband, even in Portuguese it's hilarious, you can just picture him going purple in the face. 8()-000(
I read a transcript somewhere ... was that the 'golden gun' one? ...
I think the starting point for the disastrous handling of the case lies with the Portuguese authorities; they should have appointed someone else as soon as Dr Amaral was made an arguido in Leonore's torture trial ... and given thought to that person being experienced in child protection protocols.
-
Can't think of another case where a lead detective has published a book before trial but Amanda Knox had her own PR team though this was after she had been arrested...
Not even before trial, but without trial ...
-
I read a transcript somewhere ... was that the 'golden gun' one? ...
I think the starting point for the disastrous handling of the case lies with the Portuguese authorities; they should have appointed someone else as soon as Dr Amaral was made an arguido in Leonore's torture trial ... and given thought to that person being experienced in child protection protocols.
Amaral was made an arguido on the 4th May, so he should never have been near an investigation of another abduction, or any other case.
-
Not even before trial, but without trial ...
Yep you're right of course. Trying hard to think of a case where someone has written a book about an unsolved case making allegations like this let alone by the lead detective. I remember Colin Stagg got an awful lot of sh1t for a long time, but not sure if he had books written about this before being charged. Obviously, the papers are a law unto themselves, so stuff has obviously been published before in other cases.
-
Genuine question ... I have asked it before and never received a response.
Is there another case of the lead detective in a failed missing child inquiry ... writing an accusatory best selling book, allegedly based on the facts of the case, to implicate the child's parents in the disappearance and restore his 'honour'?
There may have been more than one in the JonBenet case...
Cristovão wrote one on the Cipriano case (but he wasn't the lead investigator).
-
There may have been more than one in the JonBenet case...
Cristovão wrote one on the Cipriano case (but he wasn't the lead investigator).
Steve Thomas the lead detective on the Ramsey case also wrote a book. I believe his name was pulled through the mud too.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796
-
There may have been more than one in the JonBenet case...
Cristovão wrote one on the Cipriano case (but he wasn't the lead investigator).
Yes he wrote one about Madeliene too, didn't he.
He also started the Portuguese Association for Missing Children, the head of Portugal's new foundation for missing children. Odd he only lasted about 8 months.
-
Yes he wrote one about Madeliene too, didn't he.
He also started the Portuguese Association for Missing Children, the head of Portugal's new foundation for missing children. Odd he only lasted about 8 months.
Is this the same Cristovão who was involved in a very serious criminal case at Sporting Lisbon?
-
Is this the same Cristovão who was involved in a very serious criminal case at Sporting Lisbon?
Yes, that one!
-
Steve Thomas the lead detective on the Ramsey case also wrote a book. I believe his name was pulled through the mud too.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796
Just as Amaral pulled the McCanns' name through the mud, you mean?
-
Manifestly innocent ???
May I remind YET AGAIN, there has been insufficient evidence to charge anyone so far, and there is little prospect of any change.
...and Amaral did not set out to destroy the mccanns. That's what the mccanns have being trying to do.
'he deserves to be miserable and feel FEAR'
Ring any bells ferryman ?
You seem to be getitng a tad forgetful in your advancing years, Stephen.
Amaral retired from the PJ to write his book about the case, in the process accusing the McCanns of committing criminal acts.
(and of course trouser a few hundred thousand quid - which in my book is profiting from this sad case...)
It was only after the book had been published that he was subject to legal action by the McCanns. Action that they were legally, morally and constitutionally able to take.
Had he not published the book and shot his mouth off on TV, he would not be facing any legal action.
-
You seem to be getitng a tad forgetful in your advancing years, Stephen.
Amaral retired from the PJ to write his book about the case, in the process accusing the McCanns of committing criminal acts.
(and of course trouser a few hundred thousand quid - which in my book is profiting from this sad case...)
It was only after the book had been published that he was subject to legal action by the McCanns. Action that they were legally, morally and constitutionally able to take.
Had he not published the book and shot his mouth off on TV, he would not be facing any legal action.
Were it not so bleedin' obvious that their daughter wasn't abducted, then he wouldn't have written the book in the first place....
A cadaver dog alerted to their apartment & their stuff.
They gave differing witness statements, Kate refused to answer questions.
What was he supposed to believe had happened?
Well of course, 'It was paedos wot dunnit!'
That's what he should have thought, innit, that's the most logical conclusion!
-
Quick, delete that one aswell.
Uphold the myth that Joana was abducted.
Bent Mods @)(++(*
When you provide any solid evidence as to what actually happened to that little girl, I'll modify my current view on that case.
One or two people on here find that "confessions" obtained under dubious circumstances are sufficient.
-
Were it not so bleedin' obvious that their daughter wasn't abducted, then he wouldn't have written the book in the first place....
If it was so bleedin' obvious, then why arn't the McCanns banged up already?
-
Mods are quite content to have this lie spread on the forum then.
There's a surprise.
Not really; predictable more like.
There was the final arguments hoo ha in court during the week so it is now Dr Amaral's turn in the barrel with all the usual bolleaux being trotted out by the usual suspects that has been trotted out by them for god knows how long.
Like we didn't understand it all the first time around ( that's sarcasm if you were in doubt).
The interesting point is why retread it again now?
-
You seem to be getitng a tad forgetful in your advancing years, Stephen.
Amaral retired from the PJ to write his book about the case, in the process accusing the McCanns of committing criminal acts.
(and of course trouser a few hundred thousand quid - which in my book is profiting from this sad case...)
It was only after the book had been published that he was subject to legal action by the McCanns. Action that they were legally, morally and constitutionally able to take.
Had he not published the book and shot his mouth off on TV, he would not be facing any legal action.
You seem to forget JP, if not for the McCann's and their crass arrogance and incompetence as parents, these threads would not exist.
Amaral tried to do his job, and he has truly paid the price with the vengeance of the McCann's.
As for my 'advancing years', I have a full set of marbles, unlike many of your brethren. 8)-)))
-
If it was so bleedin' obvious, then why arn't the McCanns banged up already?
Because the got away with it, obviously.
-
You seem to forget JP, if not for the McCann's and their crass arrogance and incompetence as parents, these threads would not exist.
Amaral tried to do his job, and he has truly paid the price with the vengeance of the McCann's.
He isn't being punished for trying to do his job.......
-
Because the got away with it, obviously.
they got away with it in Portugal...phew...then persuaded SY to reinvestigate and got away with it again. They seem very good at getting away with it.
-
When you provide any solid evidence as to what actually happened to that little girl, I'll modify my current view on that case.
One or two people on here find that "confessions" obtained under dubious circumstances are sufficient.
Evidence?
Common sense is enough.
Nobody laid a finger on the violent douchebag before he confessed.
-
He isn't being punished for trying to do his job.......
It's just the McCann's wanting even more money for what they did wrong.
-
He isn't being punished for trying to do his job.......
Depends!
If they clobber him with a rap for breaching judicial secrecy (and he certainly breached it!) he will be punished for trying to do his job (in ways prohibited by Portuguese law).
-
It's just the McCann's wanting even more money for what they did wrong.
courts don't award YOU money for what YOU do wrong...try and keep up
-
courts don't award YOU money for what YOU do wrong...try and keep up
Would the mccanns be in proceedings now if they had taken care of their children in the first place ?
Cause and effect.........
I have noticed the rampant postings of the acolytes this morning.
I wonder why that is the case ?
-
they got away with it in Portugal...phew...then persuaded SY to reinvestigate and got away with it again. They seem very good at getting away with it.
They wanted a review, didn't they?
Besides, It was Rebekah who threatened Cameron.
When she offered, how could they refuse?
-
Not really; predictable more like.
There was the final arguments hoo ha in court during the week so it is now Dr Amaral's turn in the barrel with all the usual bolleaux being trotted out by the usual suspects that has been trotted out by them for god knows how long.
Like we didn't understand it all the first time around ( that's sarcasm if you were in doubt).
The interesting point is why retread it again now?
Indeed Alice yet the recent revelation that someone connected to the case has been, or as far as we know still is indulging in extra-curricular activity is whooshed like so many three year olds on a foreign holiday. Swift work John ! I wonder who complained ?
-
They wanted a review, didn't they?
Besides, It was Rebekah who threatened Cameron.
When she offered, how could they refuse?
I wonder what she promised to bestow. *&*%£
-
Because the got away with it, obviously.
Doesn't say much for poor old Amaral, then. If it was so bleedin obvious, it should have be easy to prove that they dunnit.
So. Why hasn't he.
-
Genuine question ... I have asked it before and never received a response.
Is there another case of the lead detective in a failed missing child inquiry ... writing an accusatory best selling book, allegedly based on the facts of the case, to implicate the child's parents in the disappearance and restore his 'honour'?
I doubt it but that is just my gut feeling. To be accurate one would need to identify all failed missing child inquiries. You haven't specified a domain or timescale so it could be extraordinarily time consuming. I don't want to find time for such a venture as at best it will yield a piece of information which is of little constructive use to either side of the argument.
-
You seem to forget JP, if not for the McCann's and their crass arrogance and incompetence as parents, these threads would not exist.
Amaral tried to do his job, and he has truly paid the price with the vengeance of the McCann's.
As for my 'advancing years', I have a full set of marbles, unlike many of your brethren. 8)-)))
Oh, I "get it" now. He was just playing at being a detective. His real job was writing his book, making documentaries and giving interviews on daytime TV. Thanks, it's all a bit clearer now. 8)-)))
PS - I trust you are enjoying playing with them.....
-
They wanted a review, didn't they?
Besides, It was Rebekah who threatened Cameron.
When she offered, how could they refuse?
My understanding is that they could have opposed the archiving process and of course there is that famous video "Why don't you request the reopening of the case now while you are here".
-
Oh, I "get it" now. He was just playing at being a detective. His real job was writing his book, making documentaries and giving interviews on daytime TV. Thanks, it's all a bit clearer now. 8)-)))
PS - I trust you are enjoying playing with them.....
It's getting past your bedtime jp.
8**8:/: 8)--))
-
My understanding is that they could have opposed the archiving process and of course there is that famous video "Why don't you request the reopening of the case now while you are here".
They had 20 days from the archiving to raise grounds of objection to the archiving.
It took them vastly longer than that to get the files translated, let alone read them.
In that respect, Murat had a (comparative) advantage.
He didn't need the files translated.
But reading the whole lot in 20 days would have been a stretch, even for him ...
-
From another poster raising an interesting point or two...............
'I don't know if anyone particularly took note, but during the hearing this week it emerged that the McCanns lawyers attempted to introduce further written evidence from two of their witnesses after they had rested their case. The judge refused, they appealed to a higher court and permission was granted, although apparently the judge is not obliged to consider it. This suggests to me that they know they fell well short of proving their case for damages. They claimed a whole range of consequences, of injuries to their physical and mental well-being, social standing etc and that these were caused by the book.
I don't think that they proved any of them existed, let alone that they were caused by the book. If you are going to go into court and claim that you have been suffering from a deep and intractable depression it would be an idea to actually have such a diagnosis made by a suitably qualified person and to have sought treatment. Kate McCann did neither, so in my opinion the existence of that depressive disorder has not been established. If it isn't even established then she can't possibly establish a causal relationship between it and the book. She also describes incidents of behaviour, thoughts and feelings consistent with mental illness in her own book, occurring long before Amaral's book was published, so at best I think she established that she had an existing mental illness.
I think the McCanns became used to setting the CR pack dogs away and their opponents caving in, as the papers and Bennett did. I cannot understand how they thought they could win a case with evidence from close family and a group of newly acquired friends none of whom knew them before Madeleine disappeared.
What is going to be interesting is to see the public mood when the verdict comes in. I think public sympathy for the McCanns is very much on the wane at the moment, partly because of the cost and partly because of the sight of Operation Grange detectives in Portugal every few weeks asking, in the words of one witness, the "exact same crap" as they have been asked before. So if they lose, I can't see there being much sympathy for them. '
-
Did the McCanns succeed in stopping the book being read? Prior to the case being re-opened damages would have been useful in keeping the private investigation going, now not so much. And then there is the principle. Amaral hurt them, hurt the prospects of Madeleine being found (pretty much from Day 1) and profited from the hurt he caused so why shouldn't he be made to pay? I'd probably do exactly the same in their position.
For a minute there you lost me? They brought their own roof down Samson and Delilah style.
What the good coordinating detective did was to open up the possibilities. He was right to do so and the McCanns took the bait.
As far as profiting is concerned, would he not have been better off minus the Madeleine case? You have a very short memory of what Metodo and Marcos Correia did to him while all the time being subsidised by McCann related money. Just who was the real aggressor Alf?
-
I know how much you all enjoy insulting each other, but would you please try to stick to the topic.
-
They had 20 days from the archiving to raise grounds of objection to the archiving.
It took them vastly longer than that to get the files translated, let alone read them.
In that respect, Murat had a (comparative) advantage.
He didn't need the files translated.
But reading the whole lot in 20 days would have been a stretch, even for him ...
What were their Portuguese lawyers doing then?
-
What were their Portuguese lawyers doing then?
Lawyers take instructions from their clients.
-
Lawyers take instructions from their clients.
You mean instructions like: "Review the archiving documents to see if we have grounds to oppose the archiving process. If we have start the ball rolling".?
-
You mean instructions like: "Review the archiving documents to see if we have grounds to oppose the archiving process. If we have start the ball rolling".?
No.
Instructions such as on the basis of what we've read, we think it is worthwhile applying to re-start the process
Or not.
As the case may be.
-
Doesn't say much for poor old Amaral, then. If it was so bleedin obvious, it should have be easy to prove that they dunnit.
So. Why hasn't he.
Didn't he get taken off the case?
I think he did, didn't he.
-
Didn't he get taken off the case?
I think he did, didn't he.
For incompetence.
He thought he identified whodunit, but he hadn't.
-
For incompetence.
He thought he identified whodunit, but he hadn't.
Are you being deliberately obtuse ?
He was removed after complaining about interference in the case.
-
For incompetence.
He thought he identified whodunit, but he hadn't.
He had.
You know that, that's why you're here.
-
Of course.
Portugal is in the habit of sacking its detectives who crack crimes ...
-
Of course.
Portugal is in the habit of sacking its detectives who crack crimes ...
He was the coordinator.
-
For a minute there you lost me? They brought their own roof down Samson and Delilah style.
What the good coordinating detective did was to open up the possibilities. He was right to do so and the McCanns took the bait.
As far as profiting is concerned, would he not have been better off minus the Madeleine case? You have a very short memory of what Metodo and Marcos Correia did to him while all the time being subsidised by McCann related money. Just who was the real aggressor Alf?
How you can sit in support of Christopher Jeffries regarding the disgraceful treatment he received at the hands of the media and at the same time defend Amaral & The PJ who were the author of so many smear stories against the McCanns, even before the book was written, totally perplexes me. One can only assume you are here to play Devil's Advocate because your position seems to change with the wind. Tell me how Amaral would have made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year or two WITHOUT the Madeleine case?
-
How you can sit in support of Christopher Jeffries regarding the disgraceful treatment he received at the hands of the media and at the same time defend Amaral & The PJ who were the author of so many smear stories against the McCanns, even before the book was written, totally perplexes me. One can only assume you are here to play Devil's Advocate because your position seems to change with the wind. Tell me how Amaral would have made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year or two WITHOUT the Madeleine case?
Now talking is smears, what have the McCann's, their associates and supporters, including certain members of the press being doing to Amaral ?
-
Of course.
Portugal is in the habit of sacking its detectives who crack crimes ...
Got it all wrong didn't he.
As the great SY have proven with their Gerryalike burglary/gardener guy, who murders kids & changes their pyjama tops. Or was it the pig raping farmer & the receptionist?
-
Got it all wrong didn't he.
Amaral?
Of course he did.
That's why they sacked him ...
-
No.
Instructions such as on the basis of what we've read, we think it is worthwhile applying to re-start the process
Or not.
As the case may be.
Ah! buying a dog and barking yourself. Always a good idea.
-
Ah! buying a dog and barking yourself. Always a good idea.
You haven't got the hang of the lawyer/client relationship at all, have you?
-
Got it all wrong didn't he.
Amaral?
Of course he did.
That's why they sacked him ...
So has the nature of the crime been established ferryman ?
Obviously it hasn't, so Amaral's basic premise of an accident in the apartment hasn't been disproved.
-
You haven't got the hang of the lawyer/client relationship at all, have you?
Oh yes! from years of experience one way or another. It seems you haven't though.
But no matter if it pleases to believe that the McCanns were the victims of a wicked time constraint around which there was no way then who am I to upset your ideas. I don't buy it.
-
Got it all wrong didn't he.
Amaral?
Of course he did.
That's why they sacked him ...
No, he was spot on.
That's why Kate hates him so much.
-
No, he was spot on.
That's why Kate hates him so much.
One of the defences against defamation is the truth...so if amaral has the evidence the court would find in his favour..has he produced the evidence..no...so what you and he are stating is opinion...that's all
-
One of the defences against defamation is the truth...so if amaral has the evidence the court would find in his favour..has he produced the evidence..no...so what you and he are stating is opinion...that's all
It's the right one though.
-
Got it all wrong didn't he.
As the great SY have proven with their Gerryalike burglary/gardener guy, who murders kids & changes their pyjama tops. Or was it the pig raping farmer & the receptionist?
Think you've got that a bit mixed up ... "the pig raping farmer" should actually read as ... the evil rapist (but he's not reeeelly that bad because he was only a teenager at the time) pig farmer.
-
So, what IS next in the libel saga?
The judge has to sift through the evidence provided by Team McCann..ha ! That won't take long, they didn't actually provide any. Well any which could be held up to scrutiny.
Expert witnesses were lose on the ground, or just missing, EVIDENCE provided by scientific means to collate data pertaining to the 'people who stopped looking for Maddie due to that book' was not available, and claiming for monies for and on behalf of a 'missing' child's suffering' is just sickening to be honest. Maddie could be dead- how can a judge award money under such circumstances?
I found it farcical, a bad production of a Pantomime. ho ho Yes they did suffer badly and much, much worse than their daughter being 'abducted'..ho ho Oh no they didn't, oh yes they did. And IF they did, then my opinion of them as humans and parents of a missing child is lower than it can go. Even if they 'win' I hope the award is paltry in the region of 2 Euros. Well, they are not doing it for the money.....ohb look he's behind you, ole money satchel!
-
Think you've got that a bit mixed up ... "the pig raping farmer" should actually read as ... the evil rapist (but he's not reeeelly that bad because he was only a teenager at the time) pig farmer.
He's completey innocent.
He was stitched up by the PJ, they do it all the time, so I'm encouraged to believe.
That girl was abducted.
I know whodunnit, & I've been to Belgravia twice, but alas, I cannot divulge anymore.
-
It's the right one though.
and that's another opinion
-
and that's another opinion
That's your opinion.
-
Think you've got that a bit mixed up ... "the pig raping farmer" should actually read as ... the evil rapist (but he's not reeeelly that bad because he was only a teenager at the time) pig farmer.
You forgot "and it was only the once AND she was asking for it".
-
This display of disgust for this rather vile individual would be a lot easier to stomach if it wasn't coming from posters who dismiss as unimportant semen found on an eight year old missing child's pants.
-
This display of disgust for this rather vile individual would be a lot easier to stomach if it wasn't coming from posters who dismiss as unimportant semen found on an eight year old missing child's pants.
Are you talking about me? I sincerely hope not. 8()(((@#
-
This display of disgust for this rather vile individual would be a lot easier to stomach if it wasn't coming from posters who dismiss as unimportant semen found on an eight year old missing child's pants.
Was the man in question convicted of a crime?
-
Was the man in question convicted of a crime?
Don't you think he should have been ?
-
This display of disgust for this rather vile individual would be a lot easier to stomach if it wasn't coming from posters who dismiss as unimportant semen found on an eight year old missing child's pants.
If you are referring to Joanna Cipriano:-
This specimen was never tested and like the supposed semen found in Maddie's bedroom, it was possibly not semen at all.
If you have a site from the forensic dept to the contrary, I would be grateful if you could post it
....................
If you are not referring to Joana, can we ask who it is that you are referring too.
-
If you are referring to Joanna Cipriano:-
This specimen was never tested and like the supposed semen found in Maddie's bedroom, it was possibly not semen at all.
If you have a site from the forensic dept to the contrary, I would be grateful if you could post it
....................
If you are not referring to Joana, can we ask who it is that you are referring too.
Joana Case: Crime of rape ignored to save money AEIOU Portuguese Portal
Joana Cipriano
29 October 2009
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
Joana Cipriano was eight years old when she was last seen, on the 12th of September 2004, around 20h30. The little girl went on an errand on her mother's behalf to a nearby coffee shop in the Algarve village of Figueira, and never returned.
Joana's stepfather refused to participate in an analysis of the sperm found on the little girl's knickers to prove whether or not there was a crime of rape. The PJ gave up undertaking the examination in the US to save 10 thousand Euros.
After Joana Cipriano's stepfather, Leandro Silva, refused to give a sample of his semen for the analysis, the National Institute of Forensic Medicine suggested to the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) the making of a DNA test in the US.
However, the 'indication was not followed' by the Judiciary due to the amounts involved, 10 thousand Euros, as advanced by Correio da Manhã today. The PJ explained to the newspaper that the archival was made 'because even if it is proved that the sperm belongs to the suspect he can still allege that he cleaned his penis on the child's knickers'.
We recall that the police found in Leonor Cipriano's daughter's knickers, semen. Only an analysis would shed light regarding the crime of rape of the Figueira's child.'
Why else would Joana's stepfather refuse to give a sample to police other than it would incriminate him ?
-
Please adhere to the topic
-
No, he [Amaral] was spot on.
That's why Kate hates him so much.
What, exactly, was Amaral 'spot-on' about?
According to him (in his book) he quotes Harrison as saying Madeleine's remains were definitely concealed somewhere in close proximity to the apartment.
But later, it appears as if the nefarious McCanns have driven the remains of Madeleine somewhere dead in the Renault Scenic (to another country, Huelva in Spain).
So which is Amaral 'correct' about?
Did Harrison say Madeleine's concealed remains were somewhere in close proximity to apartment 5A?
Or were Madeleine's remains driven to Huelva in Spain?
-
What, exactly, was Amaral 'spot-on' about?
According to him (in his book) he quotes Harrison as saying Madeleine's remains were definitely concealed somewhere in close proximity to the apartment.
But later, it appears as if the nefarious McCanns have driven the remains of Madeleine somewhere dead in the Renault Scenic (to another country, Huelva in Spain).
So which is Amaral 'correct' about?
Did Harrison say Madeleine's concealed remains were somewhere in close proximity to apartment 5A?
Or were Madeleine's remains driven to Huelva in Spain?
That.... 'abduction'....aint wot 'appened.
That.
-
That.... 'abduction'....aint wot 'appened.
That.
So what did happen?
Madeleine was transported somewhere dead in the Renault?
Madeleine wasn't transported somewhere dead in the Renault?
Madeleine's concealed remains were somewhere in close proximity to apartment 5a?
And if that's true, why an alert to the Renault?
So many questions.
So few answers ...
-
So what did happen?
Madeleine was transported somewhere dead in the Renault?
Madeleine wasn't transported somewhere dead in the Renault?
Madeleine's concealed remains were somewhere in close proximity to apartment 5a?
And if that's true, why an alert to the Renault?
So many questions.
So few answers ...
Cross contamination?
Indeed, 1 out of 49 wasn't it?
-
Cross contamination?
Indeed, 1 out of 49 wasn't it?
Cross-contamination?
Here is what Amaral said:
Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
(Correia de Manaha)
So, first, Amaral cites Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead and that her concealed remains are somewhere in close proximity to the apartment (Harrison didn't, but that's what Amaral claims.)
And later Amaral claims in a newspaper article that 'the body' (how I hate that phrase) was moved by car.
Small wonder there was such confusion at the libel trial ...
-
Cross-contamination?
Here is what Amaral said:
Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
(Correia de Manaha)
So, first, Amaral cites Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead and that her concealed remains are somewhere in close proximity to the apartment (Harrison didn't, but that's what Amaral claims.)
And later Amaral claims in a newspaper article that 'the body' (how I hate that phrase) was moved by car.
Small wonder there was such confusion at the libel trial ...
It's not a libel trial.
-
It's not a libel trial.
Yes it is.
-
Yes it is.
Nope.
-
Nope.
A trial to establish damage arising from (proven or admitted) libel.
-
A trial to establish damage arising from (proven or admitted) libel.
When was the libel proven or admitted?
-
When was the libel proven or admitted?
ferryman has a vivid imagination.
-
All the Portuguese papers refer to it as a trial re defamation..are they all wrong?
-
It's not a libel trial.
Correio da Manhã
(Translated by Ines)
Trial postponed to 8th and 10 July
Gonçalo Amaral has 10 days to contract a new lawyer
Today, 12h07 [16 June 2014]
Ex – inspector of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, accused of defamation by the parents of Madeleine McCann, has 10 days to contract a new lawyer, according to today’s decision by the judge of the Civil Court of Lisbon.
Monday’s trial session, which took place in the Palace of Justice, just served for the judge Emília Melo e Castro to set new dates – for the 8th and 10th July – after Gonçalo Amaral dismissed his lawyer which made it impossible for final statements to be made as foreseen.
In accordance with the new hearing dates, on the 8th declarations will be made by the parties as well as the final allegations by the McCann couple’s lawyer and the session on the 10th will be reserved for the final statements by Gonçalo Amaral.
At issue is the trial of the case in which the parents of Madeleine McCann are seeking compensation of 1,2 million euros, for defamation, from the ex – inspector of the PJ.
Both Stephen and Montclair show how little they understand about the case..pathetic
-
For the record, here is what Harrison actually said:
(Penultimate sentence of his final report):
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
(Mark Harrison)
Far from concealed remains in close proximity to PdL (apartment)
-
When was the libel proven or admitted?
Comes crawling out of the woodwork without you having to look too hard ...
-
Even most revered oracle Blacksmith refers to it as a libel trial.
-
Even most revered oracle Blacksmith refers to it as a libel trial.
That settles it.
It can't be a libel trial ....
-
That settles it.
It can't be a libel trial ....
@)(++(*
-
A brief reminder for some.
NATURE OF CRIME UNDETERMINED.
-
A brief reminder for some.
NATURE OF CRIME UNDETERMINED.
nothing to do with libel...once again you show how little you understand...your statement actually supports the mccanns...how can amaral accuse them of anything when the nature of the crime is undetermined...well done stephen
-
nothing to do with libel...once again you show how little you understand...your statement actually supports the mccanns...how can amaral accuse them of anything when the nature of the crime is undetermined...well done stephen
Accidental death in the apartment remains a possibility, and if that is actually what happened, what then of the mccanns ?
-
Accidental death in the apartment remains a possibility, and if that is actually what happened, what then of the mccanns ?
This is the libel thread...your post has nothing to do with the libel trial
-
I suppose if one had sight of the original writ one would be able to determine what was writ on the writ and we would know for sure without having to guess. So without the knowledge of that which is writ on the writ that which is writ here is just so much speculation.
(with credit and apologies to Rooster Cogburn)
-
This is the libel thread...your post has nothing to do with the libel trial
Absolutely wrong old fruit, it is everything to do with the trial.
-
I suppose if one had sight of the original writ one would be able to determine what was writ on the writ and we would know for sure without having to guess. So without the knowledge of that which is writ on the writ that which is writ here is just so much speculation.
(with credit and apologies to Rooster Cogburn)
You may wish to try to muddy the waters but the FACT that Portuguese papers refer to the trial as a defamation trial is pretty conclusive
-
Absolutely wrong old fruit, it is everything to do with the trial.
The trial will be decided on facts as they are now as you have pointed out at the moment it is crime undetermined so amaral cannot use the defence of truth...you don't understand libel law
-
The trial will be decided on facts as they are now as you have pointed out at the moment it is crime undetermined so amaral cannot use the defence of truth...you don't understand libel law
What facts are there dave ?
Accidental death remains a possibility in the apartment.
Now try adding 2 + 2
As to the trial, let's leave it to the judge and the subsequent appeals, the mccanns will get FA in terms of money, don't you agree in the short or long term ?
-
When was the libel proven or admitted?
Libel was proven or admitted at the point Santos made his plea that proceedings be in secret to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Perhaps you need a refresher on the final chapter of Amaral's book if you doubt that.
-
This display of disgust for this rather vile individual would be a lot easier to stomach if it wasn't coming from posters who dismiss as unimportant semen found on an eight year old missing child's pants.
There's a discussion on that topic here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3050.msg128945;topicseen#msg128945
-
What facts are there dave ?
Accidental death remains a possibility in the apartment.
Now try adding 2 + 2
As to the trial, let's leave it to the judge and the subsequent appeals, the mccanns will get FA in terms of money, don't you agree in the short or long term ?
the court is not interested in possibilities...just facts...fact...nature of crime undetermined...there's one.....
-
the court is not interested in possibilities...just facts...fact...nature of crime undetermined...there's one.....
So accidental death is a distinct possibility and so does the possible cover up of that as well ?
Wouldn't you agree ?
-
Please adhere to the Topic....or, off topic posts, will be deleted shortly
-
You may wish to try to muddy the waters but the FACT that Portuguese papers refer to the trial as a defamation trial is pretty conclusive
I am not muddying the waters old chap merely stating the obvious. Until you have had sight of the entire writ what you actually know is three fifths of five eighths of Felicity Arkwright.
We know, courtesy of The Daily Mirror and the court proceedings, that Madeleine's name and those of the twins are on the writ seeking damages. Damages for what ? they have not been libeled have they?
-
I look forward to this trial ending and the I might finally understand what it was all actually about. 8)--))
-
I am not muddying the waters old chap merely stating the obvious. Until you have had sight of the entire writ what you actually know is three fifths of five eighths of Felicity Arkwright.
We know, courtesy of The Daily Mirror and the court proceedings, that Madeleine's name and those of the twins are on the writ seeking damages. Damages for what ? they have not been libeled have they?
I know that the Portuguese papers are referring to it as a defamation trial...would you like to point out to everyone where I am mistaken in that statement?
-
I look forward to this trial ending and the I might finally understand what it was all actually about. 8)--))
couldn't agree more...I'm sure that some will still try to pretend it wasn't a libel trial
-
I know that the Portuguese papers are referring to it as a defamation trial...would you like to point out to everyone where I am mistaken in that statement?
So the Portuguese papers refer to it as a defamation trial, but are they correct? Your proposition is that because it is the news papers it must true? You who constantly ridicule any thing Portuguese. A bit of a ground shift there isn't there?
You haven't addressed the issue of on what basis have the children have been libeled or defamed. Do you wish to ignore that because it is convenient to do so?
So regardless of what the papers say do you Mr Davel believe that all names on the writ are there because they have been defamed?
-
So the Portuguese papers refer to it as a defamation trial, but are they correct? Your proposition is that because it is the news papers it must true? You who constantly ridicule any thing Portuguese. A bit of a ground shift there isn't there?
You haven't addressed the issue of on what basis have the children have been libeled or defamed. Do you wish to ignore that because it is convenient to do so?
So regardless of what the papers say do you Mr Davel believe that all names on the writ are there because they have been defamed?
Of course it is correct.
It is a basic legal tenet that damage is paid in respect of what would be referred to by English law as tort. Civil libel (in England) is a tort, and I'm sure, in Portugal, is similarly classified distinct from criminal law.
You don't get damages paid for nothing.
-
An old article, but it quotes the McCanns.......I hope it gives some clarification to the defamation claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement sent to Lusa in London, the McCann family says the legal action was prompted by "continuous and coarse defamatory statements [Gonçalo Amaral], uttered in various media in Portugal and abroad, that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were somehow involved in the concealment of his corpse. "
The main objective, still, is' to prevent further publications of coarse and defamatory book Gonçalo Amaral "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie", his alleged television documentary, and any repetition of his deeply offensive thesis that we are, somehow involved in the disappearance of our very beloved daughter Madeleine ".
The McCanns complain about the "negative effect of their absurd and extremely damaging statements, searches and other actions that remain, to find Madeleine."
"We can not stand still to do as Mr Amaral tries to convince the world that Madeleine is dead. We can not allow this injustice to Madeleine and attempts to find her, continue 'justified.
As to whether the children were also complainants, the reason is the "negative effect that such statements will undoubtedly have in their future lives."
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Vida/Interior.aspx?content_id=1235045
-
Please adhere to the Topic....or, off topic posts, will be deleted shortly
I hadn't realised you've become a mod. Good luck! 8((()*/
-
I hadn't realised you've become a mod. Good luck! 8((()*/
Thank you Carana
-
So the Portuguese papers refer to it as a defamation trial, but are they correct? Your proposition is that because it is the news papers it must true? You who constantly ridicule any thing Portuguese. A bit of a ground shift there isn't there?
You haven't addressed the issue of on what basis have the children have been libeled or defamed. Do you wish to ignore that because it is convenient to do so?
So regardless of what the papers say do you Mr Davel believe that all names on the writ are there because they have been defamed?
You are wrong again...I have not said it is true because of the papers...what I am saying is that it is unlikely that all the Portuguese papers...all the quality English papers and Joanna morais...have got it wrong.
-
An old article, but it quotes the McCanns.......I hope it gives some clarification to the defamation claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement sent to Lusa in London, the McCann family says the legal action was prompted by "continuous and coarse defamatory statements [Gonçalo Amaral], uttered in various media in Portugal and abroad, that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were somehow involved in the concealment of his corpse. "
The main objective, still, is' to prevent further publications of coarse and defamatory book Gonçalo Amaral "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie", his alleged television documentary, and any repetition of his deeply offensive thesis that we are, somehow involved in the disappearance of our very beloved daughter Madeleine ".
The McCanns complain about the "negative effect of their absurd and extremely damaging statements, searches and other actions that remain, to find Madeleine."
"We can not stand still to do as Mr Amaral tries to convince the world that Madeleine is dead. We can not allow this injustice to Madeleine and attempts to find her, continue 'justified.
As to whether the children were also complainants, the reason is the "negative effect that such statements will undoubtedly have in their future lives."
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Vida/Interior.aspx?content_id=1235045
That makes sense to me.
The parents are the subjects of alleged defamation.
Madeleine's rights are being infringed by asserting that she is dead without any evidence. If the public believe that she's dead and that her parents were involved, then no one will be motivated to be vigilant in helping to find her (alive or even deceased).
The twins also have a right to know what happened to their older sister and to lead as normal a life as possible without having to grow up under the shadow caused by the defamatory allegations against their parents, including the psychological, social and emotional effects of those claims.
-
Amaral did no harm to Madeleine or the 'search'.
The harm done to her siblings was done by what her parents failed to do.
I did read last week , the reason the McCann's gave in leaving their children in unlocked accomodation was because of the danger of a fire.............. 8(8-))
So by that logic they would expect. the children all under the age of 4 would know what to do if a fire occurred.
There is no substitute for common sense.
-
An old article, but it quotes the McCanns.......I hope it gives some clarification to the defamation claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement sent to Lusa in London, the McCann family says the legal action was prompted by "continuous and coarse defamatory statements [Gonçalo Amaral], uttered in various media in Portugal and abroad, that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were somehow involved in the concealment of his corpse. "
The main objective, still, is' to prevent further publications of coarse and defamatory book Gonçalo Amaral "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie", his alleged television documentary, and any repetition of his deeply offensive thesis that we are, somehow involved in the disappearance of our very beloved daughter Madeleine ".
The McCanns complain about the "negative effect of their absurd and extremely damaging statements, searches and other actions that remain, to find Madeleine."
"We can not stand still to do as Mr Amaral tries to convince the world that Madeleine is dead. We can not allow this injustice to Madeleine and attempts to find her, continue 'justified.
As to whether the children were also complainants, the reason is the "negative effect that such statements will undoubtedly have in their future lives."
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Vida/Interior.aspx?content_id=1235045
It looks as though the mccanns have succeeded in this...the book appears now to be out of print ..
-
It looks as though the mccanns have succeeded in this...the book appears now to be out of print ..
The only ascertainable effect which can be derived from what happened is simple and blatantly obvious and has nothing to do with Amaral's book.
I wonder if her two surviving children will read the 'choice language' of their mother, in years to come.
-
It looks as though the mccanns have succeeded in this...the book appears now to be out of print ..
But still on sale on Amazon in most European countries.
-
You are wrong again...I have not said it is true because of the papers...what I am saying is that it is unlikely that all the Portuguese papers...all the quality English papers and Joanna morais...have got it wrong.
Ah right I see. We have shifted to "unlikely the Portuguese papers et al are wrong" rather than your original stance with Stephen that it is definitely a defamation trial?. The children's names being on the writ would suggest it is about a bit more than just defamation. Unless we know the precise wording of the writ we can have no accurate appreciation of what it is all about. We can but guess and no doubt some posters will pretend their guess is better than another posters, nonetheless it will remain a guess in ignorance of all the facts. What is the mechanism for me claiming damages from someone who has libeled my parents purely on the basis of that libel? If there isn't one why are damages being claimed on behalf of the children? Maybe there is someone on here who has the appropriate knowledge to explain it rather that pretending they have. Unfortunately thus far we do not have much more than the odd bod saying I am thick, wrong or whatever. So I guess fat chance of a reasoned response here.
-
How did the inspection at the gym come about?
From The Book of Many Lies, we apparently learn that it came about like this:
At 8pm, Tavares de Almeida calls me to let me know that Mark Harrison requires another place because this one is not sufficiently clean.
- How do I find a place at this kind of time?
- Sort it out!
Julio Barroso offers us the new sports hall in Lagos which, finally, meets the required standards. The objects are once again laid out on the ground and the dogs can start. Eddie alerts us to a strong cadaver odour on some of Kate's clothes, but the CSI dog doesn't detect the slightest trace of blood.
So why, then, does Harrison summarise that search thus:
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
That is Harrison's sole comment on that search.
Harrison neither acknowledged UK involvement in the prior search of the villa ...
Strange ...
-
But still on sale on Amazon in most European countries.
last few copies
-
Ah right I see. We have shifted to "unlikely the Portuguese papers et al are wrong" rather than your original stance with Stephen that it is definitely a defamation trial?. The children's names being on the writ would suggest it is about a bit more than just defamation. Unless we know the precise wording of the writ we can have no accurate appreciation of what it is all about. We can but guess and no doubt some posters will pretend their guess is better than another posters, nonetheless it will remain a guess in ignorance of all the facts. What is the mechanism for me claiming damages from someone who has libeled my parents purely on the basis of that libel? If there isn't one why are damages being claimed on behalf of the children? Maybe there is someone on here who has the appropriate knowledge to explain it rather that pretending they have. Unfortunately thus far we do not have much more than the odd bod saying I am thick, wrong or whatever. So I guess fat chance of a reasoned response here.
So now you have shifted...Stephen said it was not a libel trial.....Montclair has said libel has been thrown out..there may well be other issues but libel is at the heart of this trial...Stephen and Montclair are wrong..whichever way to try to spin it.....
plus....the ruling overturning the injunction was just that....it did not rule on libel
-
So the next thing in the libel trial is the decision...I don't think anyone can argue with that.
-
So the next thing in the libel trial is the decision...I don't think anyone can argue with that.
The one thing you can be sure of, the mccanns won't be getting any money from the libel trial now or in the near future. 8((()*/
-
The one thing you can be sure of, the mccanns won't be getting any money from the libel trial now or in the near future. 8((()*/
which libel trial would that be stephen
-
which libel trial would that be stephen
Where does it say in the Portuguese Court, libel trial ?
and why are you so concerned the mccanns getting money ?
-
Where does it say in the Portuguese Court, libel trial ?
and why are you so concerned the mccanns getting money ?
so which libel trial were you referring to...
-
so which libel trial were you referring to...
It's very simple, even for you.
Where does it say in the Portuguese Court, libel trial?
-
It's very simple, even for you.
Where does it say in the Portuguese Court, libel trial?
so which libel trial were you referring to...
-
so which libel trial were you referring to...
Where does it say libel trial in the Portuguese court , as regards of the mccanns pursuit for money dave ?
-
So now you have shifted...Stephen said it was not a libel trial.....Montclair has said libel has been thrown out..there may well be other issues but libel is at the heart of this trial...Stephen and Montclair are wrong..whichever way to try to spin it.....
plus....the ruling overturning the injunction was just that....it did not rule on libel
I am not interested in what Stephen said or what Montclair said. I have asked perfectly straightforward questions which no one seems capable of answering. They ain't trick questions.
The main thrust of my original posts was:
If one has not had sight of the writ one cannot make any informed statement what it is about.
We know the children's names are on the writ.
If the children are suing for libel how have they been libeled?
Can the children claim damages on the basis that their parents have been libeled?
Or are the children claiming damages for some kind of loss or injury resulting from the publication of the book videos etc?
It would seem to me the case is more than just libel.
Any takers to give a reasoned response to the questions posed?
-
I am not interested in what Stephen said or what Montclair said. I have asked perfectly straightforward questions which no one seems capable of answering. They ain't trick questions.
The main thrust of my original posts was:
If one has not had sight of the writ one cannot make any informed statement what it is about.
We know the children's names are on the writ.
If the children are suing for libel how have they been libeled?
Can the children claim damages on the basis that their parents have been libeled?
Or are the children claiming damages for some kind of loss or injury resulting from the publication of the book videos etc?
It would seem to me the case is more than just libel.
Any takers to give a reasoned response to the questions posed?
so we agree that this trial is at least in part about libel, but there are other factors involved which no one at present really understands...but all we be revealed next month
-
It seems to be a mixture:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg206213#msg206213
-
so we agree that this trial is at least in part about libel, but there are other factors involved which no one at present really understands...but all we be revealed next month
In my opinion, fully about libel, determined or admitted at the point Santos made his plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
I think court proceedings are to assess damage arising from proven or established libel.
In doubt is, not the result, but the level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.
-
I see that Anne G., has kept up her excellent reports from the courtroom in Portugal.
-
talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...
Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:
•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (from where little Madeleine disappeared), in the area next to the wardrobe;
•in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to a street below - behind a sofa
•and in an area of the garden of the same apartment.
The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:
•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;
•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;
•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and
•on that vehicle’s key/card.
We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are
-
talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...
Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:
•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (from where little Madeleine disappeared), in the area next to the wardrobe;
•in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to a street below - behind a sofa
•and in an area of the garden of the same apartment.
The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:
•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;
•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;
•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and
•on that vehicle’s key/card.
We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are
So what you are saying is that the dogs are totally useless. You are really afraid of the dogs' indications, aren't you? Just like Gerry when he had to get in his little remark about them to the judge in Lisbon before she shut him up.
-
In my opinion, fully about libel, determined or admitted at the point Santos made his plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
I think court proceedings are to assess damage arising from proven or established libel.
In doubt is, not the result, but the level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.
Really? Yet the Appeal Court stated that the book:
The indicative facts that led to the McCanns being made formal suspects [arguidos] in the initial investigation were not deemed by the Ministry of Justice to be sufficient to lead to anyone being charged with any criminal offence. But those very same facts, seen through another prism and from another foundation, may well lead to a different conclusion from that reached by the Justice Ministry. The evidence that was deemed to be insufficient for a criminal prosecution can be understood in a different way, for example in an interpretation that can quite legitimately be published as a work of literature, so long as the said interpretation does not offend the fundamental rights of anyone involved. And as we have stated above, we have explained why the interpretation in Dr Amaral’s book does not offend the McCanns’ rights.
So on what basis and with what facts have you determined the outcome?
-
So what you are saying is that the dogs are totally useless. You are really afraid of the dogs' indications, aren't you? Just like Gerry when he had to get in his little remark about them to the judge in Lisbon before she shut him up.
You do get things so wrong...what I have always said is that I prefer to believe what Grime says re the dogs as he is the expert....
-
Really? Yet the Appeal Court stated that the book:
The indicative facts that led to the McCanns being made formal suspects [arguidos] in the initial investigation were not deemed by the Ministry of Justice to be sufficient to lead to anyone being charged with any criminal offence. But those very same facts, seen through another prism and from another foundation, may well lead to a different conclusion from that reached by the Justice Ministry. The evidence that was deemed to be insufficient for a criminal prosecution can be understood in a different way, for example in an interpretation that can quite legitimately be published as a work of literature, so long as the said interpretation does not offend the fundamental rights of anyone involved. And as we have stated above, we have explained why the interpretation in Dr Amaral’s book does not offend the McCanns’ rights.
So on what basis and with what facts have you determined the outcome?
You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants
-
You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants
Why do you keep on lying about the decision of the appeals court? This passage is an integral part of the "acordaõ"!
-
You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants
So are you saying Amaral didn't win the appeal?
-
Why do you keep on lying about the decision of the appeals court? This passage is an integral part of the "acordaõ"!
Then if the court believes that eddie alerted to cadaver on the key...and that this is a fact...then the Portuguese court is an ass......I suppose that is possible
-
So are you saying Amaral didn't win the appeal?
amaral succeeded in getting the injunction overturned.....the statement by the court is being misrepresented and believed by the usual dimwits
-
amaral succeeded in getting the injunction overturned.....the statement by the court is being misrepresented and believed by the usual dimwits
Ok so please produce for us what you believe is the correct statement.
-
amaral succeeded in getting the injunction overturned.....the statement by the court is being misrepresented and believed by the usual dimwits
The real problem is that you didn't like the decision to overturn the injunction and now the acordão is being misrepresented? You are really worried about those dogs, no matter what you say.
-
Ok so please produce for us what you believe is the correct statement.
I have produced what is purported to be the correct statement and it states that eddie alerted to cadaver on the key fob...I don't believe that..do you? That's why I believe it to be incorrect...perhaps you could address that point rather than trying to avoid it
-
And furthermore can you tell us why, if this was not the real statements of the judges why the McCann's have never sought to correct the statement it produce their own version?
Or why their Portuguese legal team have not sought to take action against the publishers of the statement you claim is misrepresentative of the actual judges summations?
-
The real problem is that you didn't like the decision to overturn the injunction and now the acordão is being misrepresented? You are really worried about those dogs, no matter what you say.
why should I be in the slightest worried about the dogs when Grime does not confirm the findings...SY say Maddie may still be alive...one of amarals lawyers agreed Maddie may still be alive...unlike you I understand the dogs' alerts.......they signify nothing..
-
I have produced what is purported to be the correct statement and it states that eddie alerted to cadaver on the key fob...I don't believe that..do you? That's why I believe it to be incorrect...perhaps you could address that point rather than trying to avoid it
So you can't produce it?
-
And furthermore can you tell us why, if this was not the real statements of the judges why the McCann's have never sought to correct the statement it produce their own version?
Or why their Portuguese legal team have not sought to take action against the publishers of the statement you claim is misrepresentative of the actual judges summations?
because they are not of the slightest importance...as I have said...posters have included the defendants deposition with the judgement....I can see it but I'm not surprised others can't. Do you really think the judges included an incorrect assessment of the dogs in their official judgement
-
So you can't produce it?
It seems no one can.... ..but I can recognise a misrepresentation when I see it...just takes a bit of intelligence
-
why should I be in the slightest worried about the dogs when Grime does not confirm the findings...SY say Maddie may still be alive...one of amarals lawyers agreed Maddie may still be alive...unlike you I understand the dogs' alerts.......they signify nothing..
Eddie's alert wasn't confirmed in the murder of Kate Prout but it changed the investigation and her husband became prime suspect.
-
because they are not of the slightest importance...as I have said...posters have included the defendants deposition with the judgement....I can see it but I'm not surprised others can't. Do you really think the judges included an incorrect assessment of the dogs in their official judgement
I believe the statment is correct. If it wasn't it would have been rapidly corrected by the McCann's and their team of paid and unpaid Internet monitors.
Not of the slightest importance? You believe a panel of judges stating that Amaral's interpretation of the facts of the case presented in his book was equally valid to the conclusions of the prosecutor is of no importance?
I see you still possess the same levels of delusionalism as when I used to post on here more regularly.
It's why I rarely post here anymore when you have ferryman claiming that the trial has already determined libel and you arguing that the appeals court ruling isn't the actual ruling and then can't produce what you believe is the correct one.
What is the point of attempting to debate with such small mindedness and intransigence.
-
Eddie's alert wasn't confirmed in the murder of Kate Prout but it changed the investigation and her husband became prime suspect.
And he was of course guilty.
I believe Prout had a group of supporters too who adjudged the evidence against him to be trumped up..........right up to he confessed.
-
And he was of course guilty.
I believe Prout had a group of supporters too who adjudged the evidence against him to be trumped up..........right up to he confessed.
when the mccanns confess you will have a valid point...at the moment you don't
-
Then why are you engaging at all if we're all so beneath you?
To attempt to determine on what basis and evidence both ferrymans and David's posts were based.
When there's none produced it highlights my position you've just quoted from my previous posts.
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules. No personal insults or abuse if you please. TY
-
To attempt to determine on what basis and evidence both ferrymans and David's posts were based.
When there's none produced it highlights my position you've just quoted from my previous posts.
My post contain evidence.....
-
My post contain evidence.....
No it contain your opinion.
You need to understand what evidence is.
-
No it contain your opinion.
You need to understand what evidence is.
The clip I posted is evidence to support my belief...it's you who doesn't understand...but think you do
-
So what you are saying is that the dogs are totally useless. You are really afraid of the dogs' indications, aren't you? Just like Gerry when he had to get in his little remark about them to the judge in Lisbon before she shut him up.
No.
That learned Portuguese judges (who presided over that ex-parte! judgment) didn't read the content of the files properly.
Otherwise they wouldn't have concluded that Amaral's book reflects what's written in the book
-
The clip I posted is evidence to support my belief...it's you who doesn't understand...but think you do
It is your OPINION that the published statement is incorrect because in your OPINION it would not be correct for the judges to make that statement.
That ain't evidence my friend.
-
I simply can't believe that the judges stated that eddie detected cadaver odour on the key fob...even Grime doesn't say that.
-
No.
That learned Portuguese judges (who presided over that ex-parte! judgment) didn't read the content of the files properly.
Otherwise they wouldn't have concluded that Amaral's book reflects what's written in the book
First you were a google dog expert, now you're a google judge.
What next ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...
Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:
•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (from where little Madeleine disappeared), in the area next to the wardrobe;
•in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to a street below - behind a sofa
•and in an area of the garden of the same apartment.
The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:
•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;
•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;
•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and
•on that vehicle’s key/card.
We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are
Excellent cite, Dave, that fully illustrates the point that the court erred grievously in finding that Amaral's book is faithful to the files.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison affirms, positively, that there were no physical remains ...
These ex-parte judgments ...
You just can't trust 'em.
-
I simply can't believe that the judges stated that eddie detected cadaver odour on the key fob...even Grime doesn't say that.
So now it's a belief rather than evidence?
Glad we've cleared that one up.
-
Excellent cite, Dave, that fully illustrates the point that the court erred grievously in finding that Amaral's book is faithful to the files.
Marvellous so why didn't the McCann's legal team seek to get it overturned after they got their hands on the verdict or indeed have it corrected in this current trial by stressing to this current court the findings of the previous Judges was so wrong?
Either the Judge is correct or the McCann's legal team are incompetent.
Which is it?
-
Marvellous so why didn't the McCann's legal team seek to get it overturned after they got their hands on the verdict or indeed have it corrected in this current trial by stressing to this current court the findings of the previous Judges was so wrong?
Either the Judge is correct or the McCann's legal team are incompetent.
Which is it?
The third option: there was no recourse for further appeal ...
-
So now it's a belief rather than evidence?
Glad we've cleared that one up.
The clip I posted is evidence and I stated my belief regarding it. It's a shame it's taken you so long to understand
-
Marvellous so why didn't the McCann's legal team seek to get it overturned after they got their hands on the verdict or indeed have it corrected in this current trial by stressing to this current court the findings of the previous Judges was so wrong?
Either the Judge is correct or the McCann's legal team are incompetent.
Which is it?
Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?
-
The third option: there was no recourse for further appeal ...
Marvellous, so why not get their legal team to mention it in this trial to further hammer home the advantage you believe they have in this current trial?
-
The clip I posted is evidence and I stated my belief regarding it. It's a shame it's taken you so long to understand
No my love it's your belief based on your opinion. You've said so yourself.
-
Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?
And keeping the English-language version on line has proved useful, in ways scarcely advantageous to Amaral ...
-
Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?
This trial won't settle the issue.
It will be followed by appeals, and the mccanns will get squat, apart from increasing legal costs.
-
This trial won't settle the issue.
It will be followed by appeals, and the mccanns will get squat, apart from increasing legal costs.
So are you admitting that Amaral has lost (at least this round), Stephen?
-
Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?
Really simple. Because those Judge's statement definitively states that Amaral's thesis, presented in the book, was an equally valid interpretation of the facts as the Prosecutor's report AND that it didn't impinge on the McCann's rights.
So given the crushing nature of that judgement for the McCann's anything that could have been done to limit the damage of that judgement, which one presumes, will be the starting point of this case, had to be brought before this court.
So once again either the McCann's lawyers are incompetent or they accept that finding without question.
the fact it wasn't speaks volumes.
-
So are you admitting that Amaral has lost (at least this round), Stephen?
No ferryman.
I'm looking forward to the mccanns losing even more money, due to their egos and wish for revenge overcoming common sense. 8)-)))
-
And keeping the English-language version on line has proved useful, in ways scarcely advantageous to Amaral ...
Super and can you produce the statement from any of the McCann's witnesses who could quantify the damage done by the book being available on-line?
I'm not talking about hearsay or feelings i'm talking about facts.
-
I simply can't believe that the judges stated that eddie detected cadaver odour on the key fob...even Grime doesn't say that.
I agree it was a serious error Davel. It makes me wonder if the Judges were under the wrong impression that Eddie only alerted to cadaverscent and did not know he also alerted to blood from living people.
That is the impression Amaral gives in his book - which is completely untrue and very misleading to his readers. IMO.
-
I agree it was a serious error Davel. It makes me wonder if the Judges were under the wrong impression that Eddie only alerted to cadaverscent and did not know he also alerted to blood from living people.
That is the impression Amaral gives in his book - which is completely untrue and very misleading to his readers. IMO.
Can you remind us all, where the dog alerts were ?
and explain why the dogs did not alert to any other object or place.
-
Can you remind us all, where the dog alerts were ?
and explain why the dogs did not alert to any other object or place.
It was a stitch up, steve.
Mr Grime was cueing Eddie.
Magic beans?
-
Super and can you produce the statement from any of the McCann's witnesses who could quantify the damage done by the book being available on-line?
I'm not talking about hearsay or feelings i'm talking about facts.
Off you go.
It is a libel trial, with damage both to the McCanns' reputation and to the search for Madeleine by propagation of the myth as if fact that Madeleine has been ascertained as definitely dead.
Damage could be quantified as Amaral's ill-gotten gains from sale of his book in several countries of Europe, and from money made in giving interviews.
-
It is a libel trial, with damage both to the McCanns' reputation and to the search for Madeleine by propagation of the myth as if fact that Madeleine has been ascertained as definitely dead.
Damage could be quantified as Amaral's ill-gotten gains from sale of his book in several countries of Europe, and from money made in giving interviews.
The clear myth, above many others, is that that a so called 'search' was impeded.
It is complete and utter rollocks.
-
Did I read somewhere recently that The Judge has a certain number of days to go through the depositions to determine what is true and what isn't?
-
It is a libel trial, with damage both to the McCanns' reputation and to the search for Madeleine by propagation of the myth as if fact that Madeleine has been ascertained as definitely dead.
Damage could be quantified as Amaral's ill-gotten gains from sale of his book in several countries of Europe, and from money made in giving interviews.
So that's a no then? You can't produce anything of any substance. Thought not.
The previous trial, as i quoted, endorsed the book's validity as an interpretation of the facts of the case AND that the McCann's rights were not violated as a consequence of the book having been published.
What makes you think then given that ruling that this court is going to overturn that previous ruling and find that the self same book damaged their reputation?
So that leaves the "damage to the search", so what evidence did you hear of from the transcripts that gave hard and quantifiable statistics to prove that allegation?
-
So that's a no then? You can't produce anything of any substance. Thought not.
The previous trial, as i quoted, endorsed the book's validity as an interpretation of the facts of the case AND that the McCann's rights were not violated as a consequence of the book having been published.
What makes you think then given that ruling that this court is going to overturn that previous ruling and find that the self same book damaged their reputation?
So that leaves the "damage to the search", so what evidence did you hear of from the transcripts that gave hard and quantifiable statistics to prove that allegation?
Amaral's ill-gotten gains from the sale of his book and from interviews is quite quantifiable ...
-
Amaral's ill-gotten gains from the sale of his book and from interviews is quite quantifiable ...
Ill gotten gains ???
What law did he break in writing the book ?
-
The clear myth, above many others, is that that a so called 'search' was impeded.
It is complete and utter rollocks.
It's a simple case of asking what FACTS were produced in the trial to support the allegation.
Here's one for starters from Angus McBride who described himself in court as "a specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media", when questioned by Amaral's lawyer:
d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions
SO - I would like to know, in order to compare, about the impact following the disappearance, the arguido status and the book.
AM - says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.
Oops! That's not good is it? A specialist in the management of media cannot produce any numbers or facts about how the media reporting changed
-
Amaral's ill-gotten gains from the sale of his book and from interviews is quite quantifiable ...
You've jumped the gun (and quite possibly the shark at the same time).
To work out the "ill gotten gains" you first need to establish that the book was libellous. The previous judges stated the book was a valid interpretation of the facts.
So if it is that then how can it be judged as libellous and if it isn't then the money made from it is irrelevant.
You need to quantify the libel first, the damage done to the search next then get to the point of the ill gotten gains as you call them.
-
It's a simple case of asking what FACTS were produced in the trial to support the allegation.
Here's one for starters from Angus McBride who described himself in court as "a specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media", when questioned by Amaral's lawyer:
Oops! That's not good is it? A specialist in the management of media cannot produce any numbers or facts about how the media reporting changed
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
That is, apparently, based on the case files.
Hmmm!
-
Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?
The book is still being sold on Amazon websites across Europe. If it had been proved to be libellous the McCanns could have used their considerable legal muscle to have it pulled, as they did with Pat Brown's ebook.
-
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
That is, apparently, based on the case files.
Hmmm!
That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.
Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........
-
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
That is, apparently, based on the case files.
Hmmm!
Hilarious! You are still coming up with that stupid affirmation that the lawyer claimed that the book was invented. I will say this only once, she was being ironic and was looking at GA when she said it and they both laughed.
-
The book is still being sold on Amazon websites across Europe. If it had been proved to be libellous the McCanns could have used their considerable legal muscle to have it pulled, as they did with Pat Brown's ebook.
If the McCanns wanted to pull the books in any other country, they would have to sue in the courts of each country and that would entail too many costs for them.
-
That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.
Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........
Which point at hand?
The point at hand that, according to the appeal court that overturned the injunction, Amaral's book is faithful to the files?
Or the point at hand that Amaral's takings from a book and from interviews proclaiming that Madeleine is definitely dead as well as a film proclaiming the same, can be precisely measured in monetary terms?
-
It was a stitch up, steve.
Mr Grime was cueing Eddie.
Magic beans?
Well the mccanns are clearly fond of fairy stories.
-
Which point at hand?
The point at hand that, according to the appeal court that overturned the injunction, Amaral's book is faithful to the files?
Or the point at hand that Amaral's takings from a book and from interviews proclaiming that Madeleine is definitely dead as well as a film proclaiming the same, can be precisely measured in monetary terms?
He was giving his view.
Now tell me the status of Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal, other than the fact that she 'disappeared' ?
-
Hilarious! You are still coming up with that stupid affirmation that the lawyer claimed that the book was invented. I will say this only once, she was being ironic and was looking at GA when she said it and they both laughed.
Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.
We also know the literal untruth of your comment.
-
That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.
Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........
It certainly harmed the search to find the McCann's credibility.
-
Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.
We also know the literal untruth of your comment.
So why did you think a lawyer for the defence would make such a remark unless it was ironic ? Wouldn't her clients be absolutely furious that she could have potentially lost them hundreds of thousands of euros ? Think logically ferryman.
-
It certainly harmed the search to find the McCann's credibility.
There is never a need to "search" for something that has been there all along ...
-
Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.
We also know the literal untruth of your comment.
Really.
Where you in court ferryman ?
-
There is never a need to "search" for something that has been there all along ...
If the McCann's credibility was assured ferryman there would be no need for you and your fellow supporters to be here.
-
Really.
Where you in court ferryman ?
I didn't need to attend court to read the book.
-
I didn't need to attend court to read the book.
I wasn't referring to the book.
-
Which point at hand?
The point at hand that, according to the appeal court that overturned the injunction, Amaral's book is faithful to the files?
Or the point at hand that Amaral's takings from a book and from interviews proclaiming that Madeleine is definitely dead as well as a film proclaiming the same, can be precisely measured in monetary terms?
No the point at hand, which i have asked you for several times, is to quantify the damage to the search the book caused.
I'm asking you for the proof Angus McBride couldn't come up with in court.
In relation to the previous Judges ruling you misrepresent again. Those Judge's stated:
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
That's not the same as saying it was faithful to the files. It's stating the validity of his interpretation of the information in the files.
-
As I asked, and so far ignored, Does The Judge not have some days to go through the depositions to determine what is true and what isn't?
-
I wasn't referring to the book.
A question for both you and Montclaire:
Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?
And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Do you think that actually happened?
-
A question for both you and Montclaire:
Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?
And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Do you think that actually happened?
It has already been acknowledged that Amaral misinterpreted the forensic evidence, but that does not dismiss the possibility of a dead body in the apartment.
-
As I asked, and so far ignored, Does The Judge not have some days to go through the depositions to determine what is true and what isn't?
Yes.
Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.
-
A question for both you and Montclaire:
Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?
And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Do you think that actually happened?
What's that got to do with the libel case we're discussing in this thread.
One more little nugget from the trial:
- The Judge states that the Final Report is evidence in itself and obviously not a judgement.
-
Yes.
Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.
Voila! So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.
Thanks, Ferryman.
-
So why did you think a lawyer for the defence would make such a remark unless it was ironic ? Wouldn't her clients be absolutely furious that she could have potentially lost them hundreds of thousands of euros ? Think logically ferryman.
So was his lawye'rs request for the case to be held in camera 'lest Madeleine still be alive' - also 'ironic' then - as that 'remark' would also appear to be highly damaging to his client's case?
I'm more interested to know in what context the lawyer made the ''invention'' remark - regardless of whether it was ironic or not? Does anyone know plz?
-
Voila! So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.
Thanks, Ferryman.
Or of course examine thoroughly the mccanns nebulous claims for damages, psychological and otherwise, which it appears they have been unable to substantiate.
-
Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.
Voila! So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.
Thanks, Ferryman.
It could also be construed she meant which items in the plaintiffs writ can be proved.
-
If the McCann's credibility was assured ferryman there would be no need for you and your fellow supporters to be here.
Equally, if the integrity of the investigation Amaral headed up, then wrote about, was assured, we wouldn't be discussing this topic.
-
It could also be construed she meant which items in the plaintiffs writ can be proved.
It means to me that she isn't as daft as some might think.
Only statements can be proved or not. The damage done to The McCanns can only be an opinion.
-
It means to me that she isn't as daft as some might think.
Only statements can be proved or not. The damage done to The McCanns can only be an opinion.
Do you think that Amaral's "earnings" from sales (etc.) might be taken as a quantifiable indicator of damage?
-
Do you think that Amaral's "earnings" from sales (etc.) might be taken as a quantifiable indicator of damage?
I doubt it. The number of copies sold and the circulation might though.
It is interesting that he appears only to have made 350 grand out of it.
-
I don't care what anyone says, I cannot see how the judge can decide this case until the truth is known about Madeleine. The McCanns claim she was abducted by someone while Amaral disputes this and theorizes that she met her end in another way.
The McCanns are claiming damages against Amaral on the basis that his book, which promotes his theories, did untold damage to them and their children including Madeleine. To win their action they have to prove his theory to be false and thus defamatory.
-
I don't care what anyone says, I cannot see how the judge can decide this case until the truth is known about Madeleine. The McCanns claim she was abducted by someone while Amaral disputes this and theorizes that she met her end in another way.
The McCanns are claiming damages against Amaral on the basis that his book, which promotes his theories, did untold damage to them and their children including Madeleine. To win their action they have to prove his theory to be false and thus defamatory.
I totally agree.
Until Madeleine's fate has been ascertained, this trial is irrelevant.
-
I don't care what anyone says, I cannot see how the judge can decide this case until the truth is known about Madeleine. The McCanns claim she was abducted by someone while Amaral disputes this and theorizes that she met her end in another way.
The McCanns are claiming damages against Amaral on the basis that his book, which promotes his theories, did untold damage to them and their children including Madeleine. To win their action they have to prove his theory to be false and thus defamatory.
you are totally wrong...the mccanns do not have to prove amaral wrong...this is not how libel works
-
I don't care what anyone says, I cannot see how the judge can decide this case until the truth is known about Madeleine. The McCanns claim she was abducted by someone while Amaral disputes this and theorizes that she met her end in another way.
The McCanns are claiming damages against Amaral on the basis that his book, which promotes his theories, did untold damage to them and their children including Madeleine. To win their action they have to prove his theory to be false and thus defamatory.
In the eyes of the law the McCanns are innocent. Amaral has written a book claiming that they are criminals.
-
I don't care what anyone says, I cannot see how the judge can decide this case until the truth is known about Madeleine. The McCanns claim she was abducted by someone while Amaral disputes this and theorizes that she met her end in another way.
The McCanns are claiming damages against Amaral on the basis that his book, which promotes his theories, did untold damage to them and their children including Madeleine. To win their action they have to prove his theory to be false and thus defamatory.
If that's the case then why didn't the judge say so at the outset, or does she just enjoy wasting everyone's time and money?
-
Do you think that Amaral's "earnings" from sales (etc.) might be taken as a quantifiable indicator of damage?
I have always thought that his Television Interviews, Newspaper Articles and The Video did far more damage than The Book, although the lies mostly stem from The Book.
Tis difficult to assess damage from earnings, but I do think he must not be allowed to profit.
-
you are totally wrong...the mccanns do not have to prove amaral wrong...this is not how libel works
That is the reality Dave. Anyone who has read and studyed the full court reports as I have done several times will realise that the McCanns led the libel claim by introducing evidence of their suffering. They provided no evidence whatsoever to support their abduction claim quite simply because there is none. Amaral on the other hand produced senior police and ministry witnesses who supported the conclusions of the original investigation on which his book was based. The McCanns undoubtedly suffered much embarrassment by the publication of Amaral's book but the question is, did they bring it upon themselves or are they simply victims of a dreadful crime.
To answer that question you need to solve the mystery.
-
If that's the case then why didn't the judge say so at the outset, or does she just enjoy wasting everyone's time and money?
The judge is there to hear the evidence and to rule on the Law.
-
It means to me that she isn't as daft as some might think.
Only statements can be proved or not. The damage done to The McCanns can only be an opinion.
Well she is armed with an Appeal court verdict stating that the book was a logical interpretation of the facts.
Then in terms of damage done it is entirely quantifiable in terms of measuring the impact of the book's message through the circulation of its contents through media outlets.
Yet none of the the McCann witnesses offered any statistics about the number of negative articles produced as a result of the book's launch. Why don you think that is?
Although if a previous court argues that the book does not offend the McCann 's rights as the starting point, then surely the impact of said book should not be of any consideration.
In another words if a PT court has ruled the book as legitimate in terms of its contents then how can its impact then lead to libel?
Either the book is libellous and should be banned (which it wasn't), or it's not libellous and ok to be sold therefore the impact of its message makes no difference because in the first instance it does not offend the McCann's rights.
-
That is the reality Dave. Anyone who has read and studyed the full court reports as I have done several times will realise that the McCanns led the libel claim by introducing evidence of their suffering. They provided no evidence whatsoever to support their abduction claim quite simply because there is none. Amaral on the other hand produced senior police and ministry witnesses who supported the conclusions of the original investigation on which his book was based. The McCanns undoubtedly suffered much embarrassment by the publication of Amaral's book but the question is, did they bring it upon themselves or are they simply victims of a dreadful crime.
To answer that question you need to solve the mystery.
the mccanns produced no evidence of abduction because they don't have to....the onus of proof is on amaral..amaral did because he has to justify his comments. McCanns have simply shown how much damage they have suffered so the judge can assess damages
-
Well she is armed with an Appeal court verdict stating that the book was a logical interpretation of the facts.
Then in terms of damage done it is entirely quantifiable in terms of measuring the impact of the book's message through the circulation of its contents through media outlets.
Yet none of the the McCann witnesses offered any statistics about the number of negative articles produced as a result of the book's launch. Why don you think that is?
Although if a previous court argues that the book does not offend the McCann 's rights as the starting point, then surely the impact of said book should not be of any consideration.
In another words if a PT court has ruled the book as legitimate in terms of its contents then how can its impact then lead to libel?
Either the book is libellous and should be banned (which it wasn't), or it's not libellous and ok to be sold therefore the impact of its message makes no difference because in the first instance it does not offend the McCann's rights.
the ban was overturned because the book had not been proved libellous...that's what this trial will decide
-
That is the reality Dave. Anyone who has read and studyed the full court reports as I have done several times will realise that the McCanns led the libel claim by introducing evidence of their suffering. They provided no evidence whatsoever to support their abduction claim quite simply because there is none. Amaral on the other hand produced senior police and ministry witnesses who supported the conclusions of the original investigation on which his book was based. The McCanns undoubtedly suffered much embarrassment by the publication of Amaral's book but the question is, did they bring it upon themselves or are they simply victims of a dreadful crime.
To answer that question you need to solve the mystery.
Hasnt it been said time and time again that the McCanns and their pals were the primary reason why the investigation was shelved? The archiving report states unequivocally that the McCanns lost the opportunity to clear their name by refusing to cooperate with the police. Nuff said imo.
-
In the eyes of the law the McCanns are innocent. Amaral has written a book claiming that they are criminals.
No.
He made an hypothesis.
Where has the hypothesis of accidental death been disproved exactly ?
and you say 'innocent' of what exactly ?
What this case is all about is a personal vendetta against Amaral and the pursuance of money.
None of which would have occurred if the mccanns had taken care of their children properly.
-
Hasnt it been said time and time again that the McCanns and their pals were the primary reason why the investigation was shelved? The archiving report states unequivocally that the McCanns lost the opportunity to clear their name by refusing to cooperate with the police. Nuff said imo.
the case was shelved because there was no evidence that the mccanns had committed a crime
-
the ban was overturned because the book had not been proved libellous...that's what this trial will decide
Wrong. This trial will decide if the parents are entitled to damages.
the case was shelved because there was no evidence that the mccanns had committed a crime
Wrong again. The case was shelved because of a lack of evidence and a failure by the tapas group to cooperate.
-
No.
He made an hypothesis.
Where has the hypothesis of accidental death been disproved exactly ?
and you say 'innocent' of what exactly ?
What this case is all about is a personal vendetta against Amaral and the pursuance of money.
None of which would have occurred if the mccanns had taken care of their children properly.
his book is called The Truth...that is not a hypothesis
-
his book is called The Truth...that is not a hypothesis
Where has accidental death been disproved ?
The book I believe is called ' the truth of the lie'
-
his book is called The Truth...that is not a hypothesis
Tell me Davel. Have you read the court reports?
-
Well she is armed with an Appeal court verdict stating that the book was a logical interpretation of the facts.
Then in terms of damage done it is entirely quantifiable in terms of measuring the impact of the book's message through the circulation of its contents through media outlets.
Yet none of the the McCann witnesses offered any statistics about the number of negative articles produced as a result of the book's launch. Why don you think that is?
Although if a previous court argues that the book does not offend the McCann 's rights as the starting point, then surely the impact of said book should not be of any consideration.
In another words if a PT court has ruled the book as legitimate in terms of its contents then how can its impact then lead to libel?
Either the book is libellous and should be banned (which it wasn't), or it's not libellous and ok to be sold therefore the impact of its message makes no difference because in the first instance it does not offend the McCann's rights.
Obfuscate all you like. There is a Trial going on, so it must be about something.
Negative articles in UK had more or less ceased by then, for obvious reasons. And it isn't just about The Book anyway.
-
Didn't The Judge mention something about the book cover and new revelations? What were those new revelations?
-
the ban was overturned because the book had not been proved libellous...that's what this trial will decide
They stated that the applicant's rights weren't violated (i.e. it wasn't libellous):
In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos.
The subsequent collection and production of evidence, namely the forensics evidence that was collected and treated in laboratory, weakened that conviction and thus the couple stopped being arguidos.
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.
All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process’ guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry’s Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
Hum..... seems pretty unequivocal to me, does it not you?
-
So we are all sitting here discussing a Teddy Bear's Picnic, are we?
No Damage done to The McCanns.
No Libel.
No Lies.
No wonder Portugal's Legal System is in such chaos.
-
They stated that the applicant's rights weren't violated (i.e. it wasn't libellous):
Hum..... seems pretty unequivocal to me, does it not you?
it would be if they had actually said what you posted but they didn't...they did not mention libel...you did
-
So we are all sitting here discussing a Teddy Bear's Picnic, are we?
No Damage done to The McCanns.
No Libel.
No Lies.
No wonder Portugal's Legal System is in such chaos.
It isnt about libel Eleanor. It is about damage to reputation.
-
It isnt about libel Eleanor. It is about damage to reputation.
Caused by Untruths. Okay, that's fine by me.
-
The judge is there to hear the evidence and to rule on the Law.
At the commencement of the trial the fate of Madeleine was unknown (as it is to this day), so to say that there is no way a judgement can be made until her fate is known would imply that the judge has been allowing the trial to continue knowing the final outcome before any evidence has even been heard, unless you think she allowed it to continue in the hope that halfway through Madeleine's fate would be uncovered?
-
Caused by Untruths. Okay, that's fine by me.
Spot on 8((()*/ That is for the judge to decide.
-
Didn't The Judge mention something about the book cover and new revelations? What were those new revelations?
I believe the judge established the book contained no new revelations and that the statement was merely a marketing strategy. Now that is not unusual at all in many fields, the world being full of articles, in the wider sense of the word, which are the triumph of marketing over substance.
-
it would be if they had actually said what you posted but they didn't...they did not mention libel...you did
Libel is part of a person's fundamental rights and is specifically mentioned in this bit (amongst others)
In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
-
Spot on 8((()*/ That is for the judge to decide.
Which will in the final analysis require a judgement on the basis of Mr Amaral's claims which requires a judgement as to Maddie's disappearance. Thus we have gone full circle and without a determination in the criminal investigation the only possible decision must be case not proven.
-
Obfuscate all you like. There is a Trial going on, so it must be about something.
Negative articles in UK had more or less ceased by then, for obvious reasons. And it isn't just about The Book anyway.
With the greatest of respect the obfuscation stems from broad brush allegations such as damage to the search.
I have asked for detail, quantifiable proof to substantiate and support these allegations. Proof that a court would require to find in a plaintiff's favour.
None was forthcoming from any of the McCann's witnesses in PT nor it seems from anyone on here either.
So if negative articles had ceased in the UK then the book has done no "damage" then has it?
That's completely disregarding the rather large elephant in the room which is the previous judgement which fundamentally dismissed the issue of the offending of the McCann's rights in relation to the publication and distribution of the book.
-
Voila! So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.
Thanks, Ferryman.
Indeed.
Contrary to this quote from the Blacksmith Bureau of court proceedings:
It was the Lisbon judge who provided the strongest support for the Bureau's contention that the libel trial has become a complete irrelevance to the establishment of truth in the Madeleine McCann affair. As she said to Gerry McCann:
"The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue."
Ooops ....
Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868798/Former-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-earned-hundreds-thousands-writing-distortions-conspiracy-theories-book-case.html#ixzz3M4FXLTPY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Drs McCann appealed against the judgement by the Portuguese Appeal Court, the Portuguese Supreme Court did not uphold the appeal and ruled that Dr Amaral's book had not infringed the McCann's rights.
That judgement could have been appealed by Drs McCann in the European Court but was not for whatever reason.
So; if the highest court in the land has ruled that the McCanns rights had not been infringed what is the mechanism in Portuguese law whereby a lower court may overrule the decision of a higher court?
Does anyone know?
-
Drs McCann appealed against the judgement by the Portuguese Appeal Court, the Portuguese Supreme Court did not uphold the appeal and ruled that Dr Amaral's book had not infringed the McCann's rights.
That judgement could have been appealed by Drs McCann in the European Court but was not for whatever reason.
So; if the highest court in the land has ruled that the McCanns rights had not been infringed what is the mechanism in Portuguese law whereby a lower court may overrule the decision of a higher court?
Does anyone know?
Simple answer is it cannot. As already pointed out, these proceedings are about seeking compensation for the damage alleged to have been done to the McCann family when Gonçalo Amaral published his book and DVD. The witnesses brought to court by the McCann lawyers all gave evidence on this basis.
-
Indeed.
Contrary to this quote from the Blacksmith Bureau of court proceedings:
It was the Lisbon judge who provided the strongest support for the Bureau's contention that the libel trial has become a complete irrelevance to the establishment of truth in the Madeleine McCann affair. As she said to Gerry McCann:
"The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue."
Ooops ....
Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868798/Former-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-earned-hundreds-thousands-writing-distortions-conspiracy-theories-book-case.html#ixzz3M4FXLTPY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So on that, the mccanns claim of 'abduction' is truly dead in the water.
As to psychological and emotional damage, they don't appear to have any legally qualified people to testify on their behalf, and a crisis management 'expert' really doesn't count, especially as they paid for his services.
-
Simple answer is it cannot. As already pointed out, these proceedings are about seeking compensation for the damage alleged to have been done to the McCann family when Gonçalo Amaral published his book and DVD. The witnesses brought to court by the McCann lawyers all gave evidence on this basis.
The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
-
The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
Of course she does, she's their lawyer and would say that.
-
Of course she does, she's their lawyer and would say that.
She would not have advised them on a course that was ill-starred ...
-
It might have seemed a good idea all those years ago.
-
It might have seemed a good idea all those years ago.
Lawyers do not generally act on impulse or a whim ...
-
The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
Yet AGAIN ferryman.
The nature of Madeleine's disappearance, HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
-
Lawyers do not generally act on impulse or a whim ...
Lawyers usually do them what their clients instruct them to do.
-
Lawyers usually do them what their clients instruct them to do.
Having first advised them of the pros and cons.
-
Having first advised them of the [ censored word ] and cons.
Of course, and some people will just ignore them and go ahead anyway.
-
The fact that The McCanns asked for 1.2 Million Euros does not mean that they will get that much. A figure has to be stated, as in does in English Law. Or am I wrong about that?
In English Law it is something to do with Out of Court Offers that might be rejected. Jean Peirre would know more of the details than I do.
But in the end, The McCanns can only get what Amaral has got, hence the seizure of his property as well as his money.
Personally, I have never thought that they would get that much, and I don't think they care anyway.
I would actually like to see Amaral come out of this ghastly mess with something, if not least to put a stop to his horrendous moaning about how The McCanns have destroyed him.
He wasn't forced to leave The PJ and write a book. That was his choice.
I have other thoughts on this subject, but not really relevant on this thread.
-
Simple answer is it cannot. As already pointed out, these proceedings are about seeking compensation for the damage alleged to have been done to the McCann family when Gonçalo Amaral published his book and DVD. The witnesses brought to court by the McCann lawyers all gave evidence on this basis.
I was rather hoping for a reasoned response from the other side of the fence as it were 8(0(*
-
Of course, and some people will just ignore them and go ahead anyway.
No sensible Lawyer, certainly not of Isabel Duarte's standing, prosecute a Dead Duck Case.
-
No sensible Lawyer, certainly not of Isabel Duarte's standing, prosecute a Dead Duck Case.
What is her standing ?
-
No sensible Lawyer, certainly not of Isabel Duarte's standing, prosecute a Dead Duck Case.
You do not subscribe to the "cab rank" principle for lawyers then?
-
What is her standing ?
About 4 foot six, isn't she?
-
Much as some would like to ignore...there is a libel trial taking place...defamation is how the Portuguese have described the trial. So posters can spin all they wish....hopefully the ruling will put paid to the incorrect claims being made.
-
The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
The libel trial is about assessing if the book was libellous. Then if it is proven it is the extent of the damage caused.
Given the words of the previous Judges and the lack of anything other than opinion and zero quantifiable facts from the plaintiff's witness supporting the allegations it is most definitely not the forgone conclusion you seem to think it is.
If you are going to claim that you have suffered damage at least try and quantify it through, for example, a record of increased media stories promoting the book's claims.
None was forthcoming from any witness or lawyer.
And i come back to the Appeal court Judges who stated the book did not offend the Mccann's rights.
If it didn't offend their rights and was fine to be sold, how can another (lower) court Judge then rule it did offend their rights and was libellous?
And to try and use the fact that a lawyer who was to be paid took their case on as some indicator of the strength of case is laughable beyond belief.
-
You do not subscribe to the "cab rank" principle for lawyers then?
Irrelevant. Does not apply in this case.
-
Much as some would like to ignore...there is a libel trial taking place...defamation is how the Portuguese have described the trial. So posters can spin all they wish....hopefully the ruling will put paid to the incorrect claims being made.
I certainly do hope so.
-
Much as some would like to ignore...there is a libel trial taking place...defamation is how the Portuguese have described the trial. So posters can spin all they wish....hopefully the ruling will put paid to the incorrect claims being made.
Enlighten us all and put forward what information from which witnesses makes you think the McCann's will win the case?
Why do you think they will win, on what basis and with what evidence which was brought before the court?
-
Irrelevant. Does not apply in this case.
You mean lawyers are not doing it for the money?
-
The Horrendous Spin and Disinformation and Lies did not cease in Portugal. Which is where this Trial is taking place. In fact it all took off at an alarming rate, wherein Amaral was given an almost daily platform. That is where the most damage was done, to the search and the reputation of The McCanns and to their wellbeing.
-
You mean lawyers are not doing it for the money?
Wash your mouth out, Alice. The mere suggestion that lawyers may be offering their services free of charge runs a cold shiver down my spine.
I meant the cab rank principle does not apply here. And indeed would not even were the case to be conducted in the UK.
-
Enlighten us all and put forward what information from which witnesses makes you think the McCann's will win the case?
Why do you think they will win, on what basis and with what evidence which was brought before the court?
Argument by assertion?
-
The libel trial is about assessing if the book was libellous. Then if it is proven it is the extent of the damage caused.
Given the words of the previous Judges and the lack of anything other than opinion and zero quantifiable facts from the plaintiff's witness supporting the allegations it is most definitely not the forgone conclusion you seem to think it is.
If you are going to claim that you have suffered damage at least try and quantify it through, for example, a record of increased media stories promoting the book's claims.
None was forthcoming from any witness or lawyer.
And i come back to the Appeal court Judges who stated the book did not offend the Mccann's rights.
If it didn't offend their rights and was fine to be sold, how can another (lower) court Judge then rule it did offend their rights and was libellous?
And to try and use the fact that a lawyer who was to be paid took their case on as some indicator of the strength of case is laughable beyond belief.
That ruling upheld Amaral's right to free speech over the McCanns' right to a good name.
And it was flawed because it found that the book was solidly based on facts from the files.
Exposure of that flaw is what will enable the judge (of the present trial) to determine libel.
-
You mean lawyers are not doing it for the money?
Don't change the subject. Or try to derail this Thread.
The question was about Cab Rank Lawyers, which does not apply in this Case. The McCanns chose Isobel Duarte because she is exceptionally good at what she does.
The McCanns are not on Trial.
Although from what I have seen, Amaral might have done better with a Cab Rank Lawyer. How many Lawyers has he had now?
-
The Horrendous Spin and Disinformation and Lies did not cease in Portugal. Which is where this Trial is taking place. In fact it all took off at an alarming rate, wherein Amaral was given an almost daily platform. That is where the most damage was done, to the search and the reputation of The McCanns and to their wellbeing.
So why wheel out a whole bunch of Brits as witnesses in a Portuguese court?
Wouldn't it have been better to fill your witness list with representatives from Portugal giving evidence for you.
Why the need to wheel out Wright, Cameron, McBride and the rest of the British motley crew then?
-
Enlighten us all and put forward what information from which witnesses makes you think the McCann's will win the case?
Why do you think they will win, on what basis and with what evidence which was brought before the court?
The McCanns will win because the basis of the book is manifestly and fundamentally flawed in fact as has already been admitted in court (seriously, not ironically).
-
Enlighten us all and put forward what information from which witnesses makes you think the McCann's will win the case?
Why do you think they will win, on what basis and with what evidence which was brought before the court?
They will win because amaral has quite clearly libelled them. They do not have to prove their innocence...as you can see...it is taken as the default situation...amaral has desperately been trying to justify his statements. The court has seen fit to seize all amarals assets...the book is no longer in print and amaral looks and talks like abeaten man
-
That ruling upheld Amaral's right to free speech over the McCanns' right to a good name.
And it was flawed because it found that the book was solidly based on facts from the files.
Exposure of that flaw is what will enable the judge (of the present trial) to determine libel.
Nope not quite. The ruling stated the book didn't impinge on their rights at all. Here's the line:
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
And if it was flawed judgement why not take the decision which was a hammer blow to the Mccann's to a higher court, or indeed seek to trash it in this case.
Why didn't that happen?
-
So why wheel out a whole bunch of Brits as witnesses in a Portuguese court?
Wouldn't it have been better to fill your witness list with representatives from Portugal giving evidence for you.
Why the need to wheel out Wright, Cameron, McBride and the rest of the British motley crew then?
Because these people know The McCanns.
However, who would you suggest from Portugal who could testify for The McCanns when The McCanns were no longer in Portugal?
Such a silly question.
-
They will win because amaral has quite clearly libelled them. They do not have to prove their innocence...as you can see...it is taken as the default situation...amaral has desperately been trying to justify his statements. The court has seen fit to seize all amarals assets...the book is no longer in print and amaral looks and talks like abeaten man
Amaral has a Judgement in his back pocket which states his book:
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is "clear" Amaral has libelled them?
What evidence did you hear from the plaintiff's witness which would usurp that judgement and also prove with facts the damage caused by the book?
-
Nope not quite. The ruling stated the book didn't impinge on their rights at all. Here's the line:
And if it was flawed judgement why not take the decision which was a hammer blow to the Mccann's to a higher court, or indeed seek to trash it in this case.
Why didn't that happen?
Because Amaral's right to free speech (was deemed to have) held sway ...
-
The Horrendous Spin and Disinformation and Lies did not cease in Portugal. Which is where this Trial is taking place. In fact it all took off at an alarming rate, wherein Amaral was given an almost daily platform. That is where the most damage was done, to the search and the reputation of The McCanns and to their wellbeing.
That is a matter of opinion, and opinions vary.
The damage to their 'reputation', solely belongs in their court.
They are the architects of their own misfortune.
-
Because these people know The McCanns.
However, who would you suggest from Portugal who could testify for The McCanns when The McCanns were no longer in Portugal?
Such a silly question.
Really?
You said the main damage was done in Portugal, so i asked why fill the court with Brits with no knowledge of the damage done in Portugal.
Not silly at all is it? You just didn't grasp the logic did you?
So what could these people offer? They couldn't offer any evidence to support the damage done in Portugal (which is where you claimed the main damage was done) and they could only put forward an opinion that it bothered the McCann's.
That's hardly compelling and damning evidence, is it?
-
Don't change the subject. Or try to derail this Thread.
The question was about Cab Rank Lawyers, which does not apply in this Case. The McCanns chose Isobel Duarte because she is exceptionally good at what she does.
The McCanns are not on Trial.
Although from what I have seen, Amaral might have done better with a Cab Rank Lawyer. How many Lawyers has he had now?
Who said she was exceptionally good ?
Let's face it Amaral has had several changes of lawyer and the outcome of the case clearly worries the McCann's.
That is why they have been calling extra witnesses for some time.
-
The McCanns will win because the basis of the book is manifestly and fundamentally flawed in fact as has already been admitted in court (seriously, not ironically).
The appeal court states otherwise:
In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process’ guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry’s Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37 and 38.
Can't fathom why Little Izzy didn't trash the Judgement for all her worth if your opinion was correct. Can you?
-
Because Amaral's right to free speech (was deemed to have) held sway ...
I'll keep persevering until it goes in at your end and you accept the facts.
From the Judges:
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
-
Really?
You said the main damage was done in Portugal, so i asked why fill the court with Brits with no knowledge of the damage done in Portugal.
Not silly at all is it? You just didn't grasp the logic did you?
So what could these people offer? They couldn't offer any evidence to support the damage done in Portugal (which is where you claimed the main damage was done) and they could only put forward an opinion that it bothered the McCann's.
That's hardly compelling and damning evidence, is it?
The damage done to the search in Portugal, and to The McCann's wellbeing.
And don't question my logic.
-
Who said she was exceptionally good ?
Let's face it Amaral has had several changes of lawyer and the outcome of the case clearly worries the McCann's.
That is why they have been calling extra witnesses for some time.
So what was wrong with Amaral's Lawyers? All useless, were they? Or perhaps they thought he was on a hiding to nothing.
-
So what was wrong with Amaral's Lawyers? All useless, were they? Or perhaps they thought he was on a hiding to nothing.
Well as I said, he doesn't appear to have lost the case, anbd neither have the other defendant's.
-
The damage done to the search in Portugal, and to The McCann's wellbeing.
And don't question my logic.
Damage done to what search? Can you now or did the Mccann's in the trial provide any evidence that the decision of the PJ to shelve the case or indeed choose not to reopen it was as a direct result of the contents Amaral's book?
Where was the proof of their well being? The definitive proof? Where's the evidence in the book of the damage to well being caused by Amaral's book?
It's built on straw.
-
I'll keep persevering until it goes in at your end and you accept the facts.
From the Judges:
I'll keep persevering until it goes in at your end and you accept the facts.
From the Judges:
Quote
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
The fact is that the judges were wrong.
It's as simple as that.
Why do you find that so hard to understand?
ETA: What sort of a country do you think Portugal would be if it were the case that falsely accusing a couple of killing their own daughter, disposing of a body and launching a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name did not amount to an infringement of the couple's rights?
Is it the sort of country you would like to live in?
-
Well don't try and be glib by throwing silly comments at the end of posts.
Damage done to what search? Can you now or did the Mccann's in the trial provide any evidence that the decision of the PJ to shelve the case or indeed choose not to reopen it was as a direct result of the contents Amaral's book?
Where was the proof of their well being? The definitive proof? Where's the evidence in the book of the damage to well being caused by Amaral's book?
It's built on straw.
You do seem to be getting very exercised over this, and determined to "win". Which is a little odd, to my mind.
First of all this is a forum for discussion and debate.
Second, the matter (the real one) is in the hands of the court, and whatever we say on here will matter not one jot.
-
Yet AGAIN ferryman.
The nature of Madeleine's disappearance, HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
We know that. The nature of her disappearance hadn't been established when Murat won on appeal against CdaM, either. However, there seem to be legal differences between the two cases, which is why I'm not sure how this case will go.
We won't know what the judge has taken into account or not until next year, anyway.
-
Well don't try and be glib by throwing silly comments at the end of posts.
Damage done to what search? Can you now or did the Mccann's in the trial provide any evidence that the decision of the PJ to shelve the case or indeed choose not to reopen it was as a direct result of the contents Amaral's book?
Where was the proof of their well being? The definitive proof? Where's the evidence in the book of the damage to well being caused by Amaral's book?
It's built on straw.
Damage done to the search for Madeline from a book which declares that Madeleine is dead, and the McCanns caused her death and covered up her body is inescapeable and blindingly obvious.
If people think she is dead andtheMcCannsdunit, no one will look for Madeleine.
And you really don't need to labour hard to establish the extent of the toll such baseless accusations will have on those accused.
-
We know that. The nature of her disappearance hadn't been established when Murat won on appeal against CdaM, either. However, there seem to be legal differences between the two cases, which is why I'm not sure how this case will go.
We won't know what the judge has taken into account or not until next year, anyway.
I doubt very much Carana that anything will be resolved by the judges decision next month.
I have this gut feeling it will roll on for years to come, and the only ones to profit in the end will be the lawyers.
-
Damage done to the search for Madeline from a book which declares that Madeleine is dead, and the McCanns caused her death and covered up her body is inescapeable and blindingly obvious.
If people think she is dead andtheMcCannsdunit, no one will look for Madeleine.
And you really don't need to labour hard to establish the extent of the toll such baseless accusations will have on those accused.
People can make up their own minds, in case you haven't noticed.
Your second sentence above is quite frankly absurd.
-
Well don't try and be glib by throwing silly comments at the end of posts.
Damage done to what search? Can you now or did the Mccann's in the trial provide any evidence that the decision of the PJ to shelve the case or indeed choose not to reopen it was as a direct result of the contents Amaral's book?
Where was the proof of their well being? The definitive proof? Where's the evidence in the book of the damage to well being caused by Amaral's book?
It's built on straw.
Ask Paiva. He was the one who said that Amaral's "Thesis" put a stop to any other hypotheses.
The McCanns, like anyone else, had to produce New Evidence, of which at the time, there was none.
It is not possible to produce definitive proof of lack of wellbeing.
-
I doubt very much Carana that anything will be resolved by the judges decision next month.
I have this gur feeling it will roll on for years to come, and the only ones to profit in thge enbd will he the lawyers.
Amazingly I agree. Plus ca change and all that.....
-
The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
Duarte and Afonso will get paid their fee regardless of the outcome.
-
We know that. The nature of her disappearance hadn't been established when Murat won on appeal against CdaM, either. However, there seem to be legal differences between the two cases, which is why I'm not sure how this case will go.
We won't know what the judge has taken into account or not until next year, anyway.
I would say the key difference between the Murat case and the McCann libel trial is that the McCanns have been able to disprove huge swathes of the allegations against them.
-
Duarte and Afonso will get paid their fee regardless of the outcome.
Duarte will.
But Afonso?
-
I doubt very much Carana that anything will be resolved by the judges decision next month.
I have this gut feeling it will roll on for years to come, and the only ones to profit in the end will be the lawyers.
I agree.
-
I would say the key difference between the Murat case and the McCann libel trial is that the McCanns have been able to disprove huge swathes of the allegations against them.
What exactly have they disproved about Amaral's allegations, bearing in mind the reason for Madelkeine,'s disappearance is not yet determined, no matter the hyperbole.
-
I think, another important point is that matters far more to the McCanns than the level of damages they will be awarded is a clear and unequivocal ruling from the court that Amaral's productions (as well as the output of his interviews) are untrue and defamatory.
-
I agree.
I'm really not so sure.
Amaral will have to find a basis of appeal.
What?
-
I think, another important point is that matters far more to the McCanns than the level of damages they will be awarded is a clear and unequivocal ruling from the court that Amaral's productions (as well as the output of his interviews) are untrue and defamatory.
You wish.
-
The fact is that the judges were wrong.
It's as simple as that.
Why do you find that so hard to understand?
Are you going to say the same when the judge gives her ruling in March?
-
Are you going to say the same when the judge gives her ruling in March?
It stands to reason when so much of Amaral's book (in fact, practically all of it) has been manifestly proven untrue.
-
I would say the key difference between the Murat case and the McCann libel trial is that the McCanns have been able to disprove huge swathes of the allegations against them.
What allegations ferryman?
-
What allegations ferryman?
That Madeleine died in the apartment.
That the McCanns were responsible for her death and concealed her body.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name.
Those are the key ones.
-
That Madeleine died in the apartment.
That the McCanns were responsible for her death and concealed her body.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name.
Those are the key ones.
How have they disproved these allegations exactly? Nobody except the person who moved her (assuming that occurred) knows what happened to her. The case is as wide open as it was on the 3rd May 2007 by all accounts.
-
That Madeleine died in the apartment.
That the McCanns were responsible for her death and concealed her body.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name.
Those are the key ones.
How do you know Madeleine didn't die in the apartment.
Even Redwood made the admittance that it was possible Madeleine didn't leave the apartment alive, or have you forgotten that ?
-
How have they disproved these allegations exactly? Nobody except the person who moved her (assuming that occurred) knows what happened to her. The case is as wide open as it was on the 3rd May 2007.
Precisely.
-
How have they disproved these allegations exactly? Nobody except the person who moved her (assuming that occurred) knows what happened to her. The case is as wide open as it was on the 3rd May 2007.
Dog alerts are uncorroborated and the deployment of the dogs was incompetent.
Mark Harrison's conclusion was that if death had occurred it was most likely that Madeleine's body had been jettisoned into the sea.
There are fully audited accounts for the fund that prove it is above-board.
-
How have they disproved these allegations exactly? Nobody except the person who moved her (assuming that occurred) knows what happened to her. The case is as wide open as it was on the 3rd May 2007 by all accounts.
The McCanns are not obliged to disprove anything. Or perhaps Portugal doesn't subscribe to Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
I am beginning to wonder.
-
Dog alerts are uncorroborated and the deployment of the dogs was incompetent.
Mark Harrison's conclusion was that if death had occurred it was most likely that Madeleine's body had been jettisoned into the sea.
There are fully audited accounts for the fund that prove it is above-board.
Merely because the dogs alerts weren't corroborated, doesn't mean they didn't indicate a body.
AND IF SHE DID DIE IN THE APARTMENT.......................
-
Merely because the dogs alerts weren't corroborated, doesn't mean they didn't indicate a body.
AND IF SHE DID DIE IN THE APARTMENT.......................
In answer to the second part of your question, if an intruder killed Madeleine inside the apartment and took her body with him, there would be no odour detectable by the dog, because the PMI would be too short.
-
Dog alerts are uncorroborated and the deployment of the dogs was incompetent.
Mark Harrison's conclusion was that if death had occurred it was most likely that Madeleine's body had been jettisoned into the sea.
There are fully audited accounts for the fund that prove it is above-board.
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's." (Mark Harrison)
Show me where Grime tells Eddie to bark at the wardrobe? First alert!
-
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's." (Mark Harrison)
Show me where Grime tells Eddie to bark at the wardrobe? First alert!
Mark Harrison, before the dog inspections.
After the dog inspections, Harrison said this:
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
Didn't even acknowledge UK input in either inspection at villa or gym.
Why is that, do you suppose?
ETA: routing that firmly back on topic, the only explanation of how the inspection at the gym came about is that in Amaral's book.
There is no corroboration of Amaral's explanation in the files, and Harrison turned his back on it when it occurred.
That should weigh against Amaral in the final reckoning when the judge comes to deliver her verdict.
-
Mark Harrison, before the dog inspections.
So what? It is clear from his report if Eddie aka EVRD alerts it suggests a body was there and removed.
-
In answer to the second part of your question, if an intruder killed Madeleine inside the apartment and took her body with him, there would be no odour detectable by the dog, because the PMI would be too short.
So now you are an expert in forensics.
As you well know, it would depend on how long the body was there for an other variables.
-
So now you are an expert in forensics.
As you well know, it would depend on how long the body was there for an other variables.
I freely admit that Harrison knows much more about it than me.
That's why he made the comments he did.
-
So what? It is clear from his report if Eddie aka EVRD alerts it suggests a body was there and removed.
Why did Harrison turn his back on the inspection after he'd witnessed it?
And why did he (retrospectively) issue PJ personnel with translated instructions on how to conduct searches in buildings?
-
They will win because amaral has quite clearly libelled them. They do not have to prove their innocence...as you can see...it is taken as the default situation...amaral has desperately been trying to justify his statements. The court has seen fit to seize all amarals assets...the book is no longer in print and amaral looks and talks like abeaten man
Dr Amaral has been the darling of Portuguese chat shows, often being quoted and often being interviewed.
Is that still the case?
I have heard nothing of him since the sharing a coffin scheme he came up with.
Has the good press he has enjoyed waned since the PJ and SY reopening of Madeleine's case and the subsequent opening of eyes in Portugal as a result?
The learned judge will of course make her ruling based on the evidence presented in court and from what I have read of the court proceedings I think she is nobody's fool.
I think she will rule in favour of the Drs McCann but as far as they are concerned I don't think there is the same impetus or necessity for a legal ruling.
They have achieved their purpose ... there is an official investigation taking place into what may have befallen Madeleine ... and in effect their names have been totally cleared by the PJ and SY who have suspects associated with each other but not with Madeleine's parents or their friends.
As a firm believer in the presumption of innocence I just wish certain people would lay off them and give some consideration of what emotions they must be experiencing as they wait for news of their daughter.
-
Dr Amaral has been the darling of Portuguese chat shows, often being quoted and often being interviewed.
Is that still the case?
I have heard nothing of him since the sharing a coffin scheme he came up with.
Has the good press he has enjoyed waned since the PJ and SY reopening of Madeleine's case and the subsequent opening of eyes in Portugal as a result?
The learned judge will of course make her ruling based on the evidence presented in court and from what I have read of the court proceedings I think she is nobody's fool.
I think she will rule in favour of the Drs McCann but as far as they are concerned I don't think there is the same impetus or necessity for a legal ruling.
They have achieved their purpose ... there is an official investigation taking place into what may have befallen Madeleine ... and in effect their names have been totally cleared by the PJ and SY who have suspects associated with each other but not with Madeleine's parents or their friends.
As a firm believer in the presumption of innocence I just wish certain people would lay off them and give some consideration of what emotions they must be experiencing as they wait for news of their daughter.
That's it in a nutshell.
But this is a really good thread at the moment. All sides aired. Which is what we all want.
-
Dr Amaral has been the darling of Portuguese chat shows, often being quoted and often being interviewed.
Is that still the case?
I have heard nothing of him since the sharing a coffin scheme he came up with.
Has the good press he has enjoyed waned since the PJ and SY reopening of Madeleine's case and the subsequent opening of eyes in Portugal as a result?
The learned judge will of course make her ruling based on the evidence presented in court and from what I have read of the court proceedings I think she is nobody's fool.
I think she will rule in favour of the Drs McCann but as far as they are concerned I don't think there is the same impetus or necessity for a legal ruling.
They have achieved their purpose ... there is an official investigation taking place into what may have befallen Madeleine ... and in effect their names have been totally cleared by the PJ and SY who have suspects associated with each other but not with Madeleine's parents or their friends.
As a firm believer in the presumption of innocence I just wish certain people would lay off them and give some consideration of what emotions they must be experiencing as they wait for news of their daughter.
Dream on. Nothing is finally sorted until someone has been charged and convicted for whatever crime has been committed
-
I'll keep persevering until it goes in at your end and you accept the facts.
From the Judges:
Quote
The fact is that the judges were wrong.
It's as simple as that.
Why do you find that so hard to understand?
ETA: What sort of a country do you think Portugal would be if it were the case that falsely accusing a couple of killing their own daughter, disposing of a body and launching a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name did not amount to an infringement of the couple's rights?
Is it the sort of country you would like to live in?
Haha!! That's utterly priceless. Some random internet poster with (presumably) zero knowledge of Portuguese law has stated that senior appeal court judges were wrong and he's right!
Self importance of a magnitude rarely seen before on this or any McCann forum.
I mean really, have you heard yourself?
I repeat if they were so wrong why didn't the McCann's take the case to the European courts or have its findings trashed in this case?
As for me and most right minded people I'll go with the legal experts of the Portuguese courts.
-
Dr Amaral has been the darling of Portuguese chat shows, often being quoted and often being interviewed.
Is that still the case?
I have heard nothing of him since the sharing a coffin scheme he came up with.
Has the good press he has enjoyed waned since the PJ and SY reopening of Madeleine's case and the subsequent opening of eyes in Portugal as a result?
The learned judge will of course make her ruling based on the evidence presented in court and from what I have read of the court proceedings I think she is nobody's fool.
I think she will rule in favour of the Drs McCann but as far as they are concerned I don't think there is the same impetus or necessity for a legal ruling.
They have achieved their purpose ... there is an official investigation taking place into what may have befallen Madeleine ... and in effect their names have been totally cleared by the PJ and SY who have suspects associated with each other but not with Madeleine's parents or their friends.
As a firm believer in the presumption of innocence I just wish certain people would lay off them and give some consideration of what emotions they must be experiencing as they wait for news of their daughter.
Yes, good post.
And as to the constant harping about the need to "prove" damage, proof should be self-evident in the dual trauma of, first, losing a loved and cherished child, second, being falsely accused of causing her death and disposing of her body, third, in (then) being falsely accused in a book, in a film, and in myriad interviews.
Suppose Brenda Leyland had been asked, before her death, to prove damage.
Yet to be determined, I know, but if it turns out that she took her own life, that would be the proof writ large that she had suffered damage, one way or another ...
-
Haha!! That's utterly priceless. Some random internet poster with (presumably) zero knowledge of Portuguese law has stated that senior appeal court judges were wrong and he's right!
Self importance of a magnitude rarely seen before on this or any McCann forum.
I mean really, have you heard yourself?
I repeat if they were so wrong why didn't the McCann's take the case to the European courts or have its findings trashed in this case?
As for me and most right minded people I'll go with the legal experts of the Portuguese courts.
Got it one.
I'm disappointed that you find the facts so funny, though.
-
You need to sort your posting formatting out.
However I'm still in stitches here.
Why if they were wrong didn't little izzy, who you say knows her Portuguese legal onions, take it further or destroy its findings in this case?
You're funny!
ETA: It's you I find funny.
-
Haha!! That's utterly priceless. Some random internet poster with (presumably) zero knowledge of Portuguese law has stated that senior appeal court judges were wrong and he's right!
Self importance of a magnitude rarely seen before on this or any McCann forum.
I mean really, have you heard yourself?
I repeat if they were so wrong why didn't the McCann's take the case to the European courts or have its findings trashed in this case?
As for me and most right minded people I'll go with the legal experts of the Portuguese courts.
Judges are sometimes wrong. In anyone's opinion. Ask Mr. Bennett.
It takes a large number of years to get heard in The Court of Human Rights.
And from what I can see, even Portuguese Posters have trouble understanding Portuguese Law. Who wouldn't?
-
Judges are sometimes wrong. In anyone's opinion. Ask Mr. Bennett.
It takes a large number of years to get heard in The Court of Human Rights.
And from what I can see, even Portuguese Posters have trouble understanding Portuguese Law. Who wouldn't?
So have they started the process of appealing against it then?
Did their legal team bring it up and destroy its findings in this current case?
-
PS. Do we have any experts in Portuguese Law posting on this Forum?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference to me, apart from the use of words, which mainly amount to the same thing.
-
You need to sort your posting formatting out.
However I'm still in stitches here.
Why if they were wrong didn't little izzy, who you say knows her Portuguese legal onions, take it further or destroy its findings in this case?
You're funny!
ETA: It's you I find funny.
We've already heard from one of the respondents in the trial (literally, not ironically) that Amaral's book is made up.
-
So have they started the process of appealing against it then?
Did their legal team bring it up and destroy its findings in this current case?
They do have time, but at the moment it is irrelevant.
I have no idea which way this trial will go, but I expect to understand the reasoning when there is a judgment.
So far, I do understand, but it would take me a page and a half to explain. And I never was into long and very boring posts. Especially as I am pretty sure that most of my compadres understand as well.
-
We've already heard from one of the respondents in the trial (literally, not ironically) that Amaral's book is made up.
Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?
I'm still howling here by the way.
-
Mark Harrison, before the dog inspections.
After the dog inspections, Harrison said this:
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
Didn't even acknowledge UK input in either inspection at villa or gym.
Why is that, do you suppose?
ETA: rooting that firmly back on topic, the only explanation of how the inspection at the gym came about is that in Amaral's book.
There is no corroboration of Amaral's explanation in the files, and Harrison turned his back on it when it occurred.
That should weigh against Amaral in the final reckoning when the judge comes to deliver her verdict.
-
They do have time, but at the moment it is irrelevant.
I have no idea which way this trial will go, but I expect to understand the reasoning when there is a judgment.
So far, I do understand, but it would take me a page and a half to explain. And I never was into long and very boring posts. Especially as I am pretty sure that most of my compadres understand as well.
So that's a no then?
Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?
That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.
Did that happen?
-
Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?
I'm still howling here by the way.
Oh, the irony.
-
Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?
I'm still howling here by the way.
Wrong again.
It was a literal comment.
-
Wrong again.
It was a literal comment.
And you're delusional. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the judge thinks. She was there and heard the remark and she knows that it was irony.
-
Wrong again.
It was a literal comment.
Yeah you cling on to that hope funny man ( given your statement about the judges being wrong you should really amend your username accordingly).
It's pretty much the only thing you can cling on to at the moment with the trial.
Nothing presented to usurp the judges findings at appeal.
No quantifiable facts to support the assertion that the book damaged them
No evidence to counter the JUDGEMENT that the book did not violate their rights.
Do you want to borrow some straws?
-
So that's a no then?
Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?
That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.
Did that happen?
What are you talking about? There is nothing quick and easy in Portuguese Law.
And "So that's a No" to what then? I thought I was being unbiased. I will go with The Judgment because whatever it is it will be understandable. Even if I don't necessarily agree.
-
So that's a no then?
Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?
That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.
Did that happen?
I think the best you can hope for is that the judge will award the McCanns substantially lower than those they seek.
But what will matter most to the McCanns (I predict) is an unequivocal ruling that Amaral's book is a work of libel.
-
You do seem to be getting very exercised over this, and determined to "win". Which is a little odd, to my mind.
First of all this is a forum for discussion and debate.
Second, the matter (the real one) is in the hands of the court, and whatever we say on here will matter not one jot.
What's odd is that random internet peeps think it's acceptable to state that legally unchallenged court judgements are wrong.
What's odd is posters being given time and again the exact phrase used in the judgement stating the McCann's rights were not violated but yet still persisting with the line that Amaral's right to freedom was greater than the McCann's rights.
What's odd is that despite requests for quantifiable and verifiable facts from the witnesses to support the allegations - and having provided none posters persist in perpetuating the myth that not only will Amaral lose but, in ferrymans case stating, unchallenged, that libel has already been proven.
Don't you find those things odd?
-
You know, this is such a good Thread at the moment. So why the need for insults? Everyone is doing so well. So can you just leave it out, please.
-
What I find rather comical is that you're all arguing from a position of ignorance to a greater or lesser degree. No one really knows wtf is (or has) REALLY been going on and trying to second guess the outcome is a pointless exercise. This is Portuguese justice - anything could happen! @)(++(*
-
What are you talking about? There is nothing quick and easy in Portuguese Law.
And "So that's a No" to what then? I thought I was being unbiased. I will go with The Judgment because whatever it is it will be understandable. Even if I don't necessarily agree.
It's a no in relation to action being commenced to take the appeal ruling further.
It's a no that Duarte did not seek to destroy the appeals ruling in court in this case.
My point is if the Judges were so wrong why the McCann's legal team have done nothing in terms of appeal to a higher European court, or sought to debunk it in this trial.
If that's thecase could it be because they have had to accept it?
That's the point.
-
What's odd is that random internet peeps think it's acceptable to state that legally unchallenged court judgements are wrong.
What's odd is posters being given time and again the exact phrase used in the judgement stating the McCann's rights were not violated but yet still persisting with the line that Amaral's right to freedom was greater than the McCann's rights.
What's odd is that despite requests for quantifiable and verifiable facts from the witnesses to support the allegations - and having provided none posters persist in perpetuating the myth that not only will Amaral lose but, in ferrymans case stating, unchallenged, that libel has already been proven.
Don't you find those things odd?
The objective definition of libel is assertions presented as "fact" that (Portuguese law!) is proven untrue.
Amaral's book literally teems with examples and I gather from those who have seen it (I haven't) the film is worse.
So the question at issue is what level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.
Probably less than those they seek.
-
What I find rather comical is that you're all arguing from a position of ignorance to a greater or lesser degree. No one really knows wtf is (or has) REALLY been going on and trying to second guess the outcome is a pointless exercise. This is Portuguese justice - anything could happen! @)(++(*
Hi Alfred, I totally accept that, but one has to try and look at the surrounding information of previous judgements and witness evidence to try and form a view that is based on that evidence.
Given that the previous appeals court ruling was so unequivocal I'm surprised this trial was allowed to proceed in the first place. If the book was judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts which did not affect the rights of the McCann's than how on earth can they claim its libellous?
The previous judges I would have thought have answered that question resoundingly.
-
The objective definition of libel is assertions presented as "fact" that (Portuguese law!) is proven untrue.
Amaral's book literally teems with examples and I gather from those who have seen it (I haven't) the film is worse.
So the question at issue is what level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.
Probably less than those they seek.
But that's only your view. It has been previously judged to have been a valid interpretation of those facts which does not impinge the rights of the McCann's.
Given that how on earth can it then be classed as libellous?
-
Hi Alfred, I totally accept that, but one has to try and look at the surrounding information of previous judgements and witness evidence to try and form a view that is based on that evidence.
Given that the previous appeals court ruling was so unequivocal I'm surprised this trial was allowed to proceed in the first place. If the book was judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts which did not affect the rights of the McCann's than how on earth can they claim its libellous?
The previous judges I would have thought have answered that question resoundingly.
Re; the bit in bold above - well it was allowed and that should give you some pause for thought. There must be a reason as I said to John earlier, otherwise the judge would have thrown it out before it ever got off the ground. So, why has it been allowed to proceed, and for so long?
-
But that's only your view. It has been previously judged to have been a valid interpretation of those facts which does not impinge the rights of the McCann's.
Given that how on earth can it then be classed as libellous?
Based on what?
Clearly not careful comparison of the book with the case files ...
-
Based on what?
Clearly not careful comparison of the book with the case files ...
It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.
They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.
Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?
-
It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.
They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.
Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?
Now I'm the one in fits of laughter ...
-
It's a no in relation to action being commenced to take the appeal ruling further.
It's a no that Duarte did not seek to destroy the appeals ruling in court in this case.
My point is if the Judges were so wrong why the McCann's legal team have done nothing in terms of appeal to a higher European court, or sought to debunk it in this trial.
If that's thecase could it be because they have had to accept it?
That's the point.
I don't know. I thought that there was no Appeal Court beyond what Isobel Duarte did. And it wasn't the prime issue anyway, since there is an ongoing Trial.
But then I don't generally disagree with what A Judge says. I actually believe that most of them know their own Law.
We will only see that in action if one party or the other disagrees with her judgment. Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal. Appeals are not automatic.
So at the moment, your opinion is a good as mine.
-
It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.
They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.
Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?
It is for The Judge to find the discrepancies. And she will if there are any. She will have a team of researchers finding the relevant passages, and then she will read what is important. She has already read The Title of The Book and formed an opinion on that. That was a good one.
-
It is for The Judge to find the discrepancies. And she will if there are any. She will have a team of researchers finding the relevant passages, and then she will read what is important. She has already read The Title of The Book and formed an opinion on that. That was a good one.
So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?
-
I don't know. I thought that there was no Appeal Court beyond what Isobel Duarte did. And it wasn't the prime issue anyway, since there is an ongoing Trial.
But then I don't generally disagree with what A Judge says. I actually believe that most of them know their own Law.
We will only see that in action if one party or the other disagrees with her judgment. Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal. Appeals are not automatic.
So at the moment, your opinion is a good as mine.
Kate's book
Devastatingly, by the autumn, everything had flipped again. On 19 October 2010 we were hit from a bolt from the blue. Clarence was told by a Sun reporter that yet another decision from the appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban on sale of Amaral's book and DVD (decision 5). We hadn't been aware that another judgment was about to be made and neither was our lawyer. The broadside just came from nowhere. How many appeals was Amaral going to be allowed? How could other judges come along and overturn a decision made by 3 courts before them?
(There's more)
Then here's the nub:
In a 6th decision in 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected.
Page 426 (paperback)
Kate McCann.
-
It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.
They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.
Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?
Aren't defence teams for defendants?
-
So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?
Has it ever occurred to you that judges get things wrong?
That's why appeals are allowed?
-
Now I'm the one in fits of laughter ...
No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.
The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.
Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?
-
Aren't defence teams for defendants?
Apologies Freiudan slip due to posting on a phone rather than my laptop.
You know my meaning though, right?
-
No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.
The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.
Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?
Do you have a transcript of the 2011 appeal against the reversal of the injunction?
-
Aren't defence teams for defendants?
In civil actions, they are generally referred to as respondents.
-
Apologies Freiudan slip due to posting on a phone rather than my laptop.
You know my meaning though, right?
I know that most sceptics tend to think of the McCanns as the defendants in this case for some reason, yes.
-
Kate's book
Devastatingly, by the autumn, everything had flipped again. On 19 October 2010 we were hit from a bolt from the blue. Clarence was told by a Sun reporter that yet another decision from the appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban on sale of Amaral's book and DVD (decision 5). We hadn't been aware that another judgment was about to be made and neither was our lawyer. The broadside just came from nowhere. How many appeals was Amaral going to be allowed? How could other judges come along and overturn a decision made by 3 courts before them?
(There's more)
Then here's the nub:
In a 6th decision in 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected.
Page 426 (paperback)
Kate McCann.
The injustice of it all!!
So why havent they fought for this injustice to be overturned?
Can't be that much of an injustice then can it if you're not prepared to fight to get it overtunred.
-
I know that most sceptics tend to think of the McCanns as the defendants in this case for some reason, yes.
Not in this case Alfred. A simple slip due to posting on my phone. It's more difficult to review and check on the phone.
-
So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?
Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it. And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.
-
Re; the bit in bold above - well it was allowed and that should give you some pause for thought. There must be a reason as I said to John earlier, otherwise the judge would have thrown it out before it ever got off the ground. So, why has it been allowed to proceed, and for so long?
Well now! Do we know the terms of the original writ? er no. Do we know that the terms of the writ were not changed subsequent to the Supreme Court judgement? er no.That is a shame because it may give us a clue what it is really about.
As I recall the part of the writ published in the Daily Mirror dealt mostly with damages for Kate and Gerry McCann and their three children even down to the amounts claimed by each plaintiff (sadly I can't find the thing right now but surely someone on here has it?) because of the emotional pain and suffering the book had caused to them. I stand to be corrected but I do not see in this instance that libel and general damages are mutually dependent. That is, the Supreme Court may rule that the book was not libelous but a claim for general damages was permissible by virtue of Dr Amaral putting his interpretation on the evidence available?
-
Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it. And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.
Is right.
It was a question of whether that part of the Portuguese constitution that allows free speech should hold sway, or whether it should be the right of citizens to a good name.
One guarantee of the Portuguese constitution (or the other) had to give way.
-
No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.
The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.
Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?
More unnecessary insults. What is wrong with your considered opinion? It sounds alright to me without the insults.
-
Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it. And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.
But wouldn't finding out if the book was inaccurate form a mightily significant basis on whether the book should remain banned rather than stating it was a valid interpretation?
Strikes me as being a pretty fundamental part of that case.
-
More unnecessary insults. What is wrong with your considered opinion? It sounds alright to me without the insults.
Really? I fail to see the insult there Eleanor.
Do you not accept a forum member in a different country to the trial should be able to proclaim that senior judges with many year of legal experience were wrong and he is right?
It does the forum no favours to allow such hokum to be be bandied about as a statement of fact.
It opens the forum up to ridicule.
And actually when things are ok between the relevant sides it's probably the best forum for both sides to discuss the issues.
-
Is right.
It was a question of whether that part of the Portuguese constitution that allows free speech should hold sway, or whether it should be the right of citizens to a good name.
One guarantee of the Portuguese constitution (or the other) had to give way.
How many times do you need to be shown the wording of the judgement before you stop perpetuating this falsehood?
How can it be about what holds sway when the judges stated categorically their rights weren't offended?
For heavens sake.
-
But wouldn't finding out if the book was inaccurate form a mightily significant basis on whether the book should remain banned rather than stating it was a valid interpretation?
Strikes me as being a pretty fundamental part of that case.
It was an Injunction, possibly hastily given, without due consideration. It was intended to limit any further damage, as The Judge saw it.
However, you have to admit that it worked, even if The McCanns did lose that particular Point of Law. And that is all it was. A Point of Law.
-
The objective definition of libel is assertions presented as "fact" that (Portuguese law!) is proven untrue.
Amaral's book literally teems with examples and I gather from those who have seen it (I haven't) the film is worse.
So the question at issue is what level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.
Probably less than those they seek.
Dreamland personified.
-
How many times do you need to be shown the wording of the judgement before you stop perpetuating this falsehood?
How can it be about what holds sway when the judges stated categorically their rights weren't offended?
For heavens sake.
How many times to you need to be shown the patent and manifestly proven falsehoods and lies in Amaral's book that lower the McCanns' reputation and hinder the search for Madeleine by propagating the myth that Madeleine was proven dead before you will (finally) get the message ?
-
How many times do you need to be shown the wording of the judgement before you stop perpetuating this falsehood?
How can it be about what holds sway when the judges stated categorically their rights weren't offended?
For heavens sake.
Perhaps you could tell us what the Portuguese word used in the judgement. Fundamental means basic... I don't see that protection from libel is a basic right. Certainly if I was libelled and reported it to the police I would get no help. Could you tell us what the judges meant by fundamental rights.
Can a book be banned even if it is libellous. Portugal has strong freedom of speech laws. Therefore libel gives the plaintif a right to damages...not to have the books burnt
-
How many times to you need to be shown the patent and manifestly proven falsehoods and lies in Amaral's book that lower the McCanns' reputation and hinder the search for Madeleine by propagating the myth that Madeleine was proven dead before you will (finally) get the message ?
Manifest untruths ?
That's just pure rollocks until the nature of the crime is determined.
All your posts reveal is desperation, as you ease towards the waterfall.................
-
How many times to you need to be shown the patent and manifestly proven falsehoods and lies in Amaral's book that lower the McCanns' reputation and hinder the search for Madeleine by propagating the myth that Madeleine was proven dead before you will (finally) get the message ?
When has the so called 'search' for Madeleine stopped ?
-
How many times to you need to be shown the patent and manifestly proven falsehoods and lies in Amaral's book that lower the McCanns' reputation and hinder the search for Madeleine by propagating the myth that Madeleine was proven dead before you will (finally) get the message ?
I'm not interested in what you think are falsehoods based on your laymans reading of the files and your own subsequent laymans interpretations of those files.
I'm interested in what the real legal people say to the real courts about those files.
And at every level those legitimate legal representitives Of the McCann's have failed to challenge the appeals court ruling.
Why do you think that is?
-
I'm not interested in what you think are falsehoods based on your laymans reading of the files and your own subsequent laymans interpretations of those files.
I'm interested in what the real legal people say to the real courts about those files.
And at every level those legitimate legal representitives Of the McCann's have failed to challenge the appeals court ruling.
Why do you think that is?
You seem to be inexplicably confusing fact and opinion ...
-
Really? I fail to see the insult there Eleanor.
Do you not accept a forum member in a different country to the trial should be able to proclaim that senior judges with many year of legal experience were wrong and he is right?
It does the forum no favours to allow such hokum to be be bandied about as a statement of fact.
It opens the forum up to ridicule.
And actually when things are ok between the relevant sides it's probably the best forum for both sides to discuss the issues.
"A bit of a Wally." "Your beloved McCann legal team." Not the worst I have seen by any means. But was there any need for that?
And don't think that you are the only one in my sight. You are not the only one. And I am simply not having this any more, from any of you.
It has just stood out for me in what is a good discussion. And could very nearly have wrecked it.
And ultimately, I won't be bothered to Modify anyone's posts. I shall just delete them if they contain insults.
-
Well now! Do we know the terms of the original writ? er no. Do we know that the terms of the writ were not changed subsequent to the Supreme Court judgement? er no.That is a shame because it may give us a clue what it is really about.
As I recall the part of the writ published in the Daily Mirror dealt mostly with damages for Kate and Gerry McCann and their three children even down to the amounts claimed by each plaintiff (sadly I can't find the thing right now but surely someone on here has it?) because of the emotional pain and suffering the book had caused to them. I stand to be corrected but I do not see in this instance that libel and general damages are mutually dependent. That is, the Supreme Court may rule that the book was not libelous but a claim for general damages was permissible by virtue of Dr Amaral putting his interpretation on the evidence available?
TORN APART BY HIS LIES
Sunday Mirror
July 12, 2009
MADDIE PARENTS SUE COP FOR £1M BOOK PROFITS
By TOM WORDEN
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the police chief who bungled the investigation into their daughter's disappearance - and blamed them for her death - for £1million.
In a 36-page writ handed to the Sunday Mirror, they lay bare in painful detail how Gonçalo Amaral's accusations left them "totally destroyed" and caused them "irreparable" damage.
It also gives a harrowing insight into the day-to-day life in the McCann household as they struggle to cope without Madeleine.
The writ - which the Sunday Mirror has had translated from Portuguese - outlines how the couple both suffer from "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear". It also says Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
Disgraced former police Amaral has pocketed £ 1million writing a lurid book and making a documentary full of cruel lies about Madeliene and her parents. And now they are suing him for every penny of it.
He accuses them of accidentally killing their three-year-old daughter and then covering up her death.
Amaral, who was thrown off case after five months, has repeatedly claimed Madeleine died in the holiday apartment on Algarve. In his book The Truth About The Lie he spouts his absurd theory that the couple hid their daughter's body.
The lawsuit also highlights their fears for four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie when they start school later this year and begin to hear rumours that Madeleine is dead.
And it accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.
The couple, both 41, have hired Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte to sue Amaral for defamation and for breaching their human rights. Mrs Duarte, 54, said: "Somebody has to stop him and shut him up. He is a rich man now, earning millions from the distress of this family. We believe he has made up to 1.2million euros (£1million) from the book and the video. We want the court to punish him by taking at least that much from him."
The McCanns have a good case for defamation as they have already been cleared by Portugal's Attorney General. The case will go to trial in Lisbon next summer and Amaral, 49, could force the McCanns to take the stand. Madeleine is named with Kate and Gerry and the twins as a complainant in the lawsuit, lodged on June 24.
The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leics, claim Amaral's repeated insistence that their daughter is dead has stopped people looking for her. The lawsuit states: "Madeleine has been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at serious risk."
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
The couple want a minimum of £430,000 in damages for Madeleine, which will be used to keep the search for her going. They also want a minimum of £215,000 each for them, and another £86,000 each for the twins. It is thought any money they get will go to the Maddie fund.
Amaral's book has sold around 330,000 copies worldwide. The father-of-three has become a celeb in Portugal, and has a new Jaguar.
The McCanns say his "sole objectives" in writing the book were "to earn a lot of money", using "lies".
It says the book and his 50-minute documentary, which has been shown twice on Portuguese TV, are "manipulative, perverse, false, destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and therefore illegal".
Amaral was in charge of the 30 detectives looking for Madeleine after she vanished in May 2007 on a family holiday in Praia da Luz.
He was largely responsible for making the McCanns "arguidos" - suspects - four months after Madeleine vanished. But he was kicked off the case in October 2007 days after the Sunday Mirror revealed he was working as little as four hours a day and was enjoying long, boozy lunches.
He was removed from the case on his 48th birthday. Amaral took early retirement shortly afterwards, ending 27 years on the force.
He began writing his book, promoting it by travelling around Europe giving newspaper interviews.
It went on sale in a blaze of publicity in July last year - three days after the McCanns' "arguido" status was removed. Earlier this month Amaral was charged with torturing a witness during a separate missing child case. He faces jail if convicted.
WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING
£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.
£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.
£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
-
You seem to be inexplicably confusing fact and opinion ...
I'm waiting for you to tell me why Isobel hasn't challenged the judgement using these falsehoods you've found.
Should I not hold My breath for an answer to that one?
-
TORN APART BY HIS LIES
Sunday Mirror
July 12, 2009
MADDIE PARENTS SUE COP FOR £1M BOOK PROFITS
By TOM WORDEN
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the police chief who bungled the investigation into their daughter's disappearance - and blamed them for her death - for £1million.
In a 36-page writ handed to the Sunday Mirror, they lay bare in painful detail how Gonçalo Amaral's accusations left them "totally destroyed" and caused them "irreparable" damage.
It also gives a harrowing insight into the day-to-day life in the McCann household as they struggle to cope without Madeleine.
The writ - which the Sunday Mirror has had translated from Portuguese - outlines how the couple both suffer from "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear". It also says Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
Disgraced former police Amaral has pocketed £ 1million writing a lurid book and making a documentary full of cruel lies about Madeliene and her parents. And now they are suing him for every penny of it.
He accuses them of accidentally killing their three-year-old daughter and then covering up her death.
Amaral, who was thrown off case after five months, has repeatedly claimed Madeleine died in the holiday apartment on Algarve. In his book The Truth About The Lie he spouts his absurd theory that the couple hid their daughter's body.
The lawsuit also highlights their fears for four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie when they start school later this year and begin to hear rumours that Madeleine is dead.
And it accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.
The couple, both 41, have hired Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte to sue Amaral for defamation and for breaching their human rights. Mrs Duarte, 54, said: "Somebody has to stop him and shut him up. He is a rich man now, earning millions from the distress of this family. We believe he has made up to 1.2million euros (£1million) from the book and the video. We want the court to punish him by taking at least that much from him."
The McCanns have a good case for defamation as they have already been cleared by Portugal's Attorney General. The case will go to trial in Lisbon next summer and Amaral, 49, could force the McCanns to take the stand. Madeleine is named with Kate and Gerry and the twins as a complainant in the lawsuit, lodged on June 24.
The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leics, claim Amaral's repeated insistence that their daughter is dead has stopped people looking for her. The lawsuit states: "Madeleine has been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at serious risk."
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
The couple want a minimum of £430,000 in damages for Madeleine, which will be used to keep the search for her going. They also want a minimum of £215,000 each for them, and another £86,000 each for the twins. It is thought any money they get will go to the Maddie fund.
Amaral's book has sold around 330,000 copies worldwide. The father-of-three has become a celeb in Portugal, and has a new Jaguar.
The McCanns say his "sole objectives" in writing the book were "to earn a lot of money", using "lies".
It says the book and his 50-minute documentary, which has been shown twice on Portuguese TV, are "manipulative, perverse, false, destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and therefore illegal".
Amaral was in charge of the 30 detectives looking for Madeleine after she vanished in May 2007 on a family holiday in Praia da Luz.
He was largely responsible for making the McCanns "arguidos" - suspects - four months after Madeleine vanished. But he was kicked off the case in October 2007 days after the Sunday Mirror revealed he was working as little as four hours a day and was enjoying long, boozy lunches.
He was removed from the case on his 48th birthday. Amaral took early retirement shortly afterwards, ending 27 years on the force.
He began writing his book, promoting it by travelling around Europe giving newspaper interviews.
It went on sale in a blaze of publicity in July last year - three days after the McCanns' "arguido" status was removed. Earlier this month Amaral was charged with torturing a witness during a separate missing child case. He faces jail if convicted.
WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING
£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.
£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.
£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
That from the 'sardine munchers' paper.
Again highlighting the mccanns search for more cash.
-
TORN APART BY HIS LIES
Sunday Mirror
July 12, 2009
MADDIE PARENTS SUE COP FOR £1M BOOK PROFITS
By TOM WORDEN
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the police chief who bungled the investigation into their daughter's disappearance - and blamed them for her death - for £1million.
In a 36-page writ handed to the Sunday Mirror, they lay bare in painful detail how Gonçalo Amaral's accusations left them "totally destroyed" and caused them "irreparable" damage.
It also gives a harrowing insight into the day-to-day life in the McCann household as they struggle to cope without Madeleine.
The writ - which the Sunday Mirror has had translated from Portuguese - outlines how the couple both suffer from "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear". It also says Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
Disgraced former police Amaral has pocketed £ 1million writing a lurid book and making a documentary full of cruel lies about Madeliene and her parents. And now they are suing him for every penny of it.
He accuses them of accidentally killing their three-year-old daughter and then covering up her death.
Amaral, who was thrown off case after five months, has repeatedly claimed Madeleine died in the holiday apartment on Algarve. In his book The Truth About The Lie he spouts his absurd theory that the couple hid their daughter's body.
The lawsuit also highlights their fears for four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie when they start school later this year and begin to hear rumours that Madeleine is dead.
And it accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.
The couple, both 41, have hired Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte to sue Amaral for defamation and for breaching their human rights. Mrs Duarte, 54, said: "Somebody has to stop him and shut him up. He is a rich man now, earning millions from the distress of this family. We believe he has made up to 1.2million euros (£1million) from the book and the video. We want the court to punish him by taking at least that much from him."
The McCanns have a good case for defamation as they have already been cleared by Portugal's Attorney General. The case will go to trial in Lisbon next summer and Amaral, 49, could force the McCanns to take the stand. Madeleine is named with Kate and Gerry and the twins as a complainant in the lawsuit, lodged on June 24.
The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leics, claim Amaral's repeated insistence that their daughter is dead has stopped people looking for her. The lawsuit states: "Madeleine has been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at serious risk."
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
The couple want a minimum of £430,000 in damages for Madeleine, which will be used to keep the search for her going. They also want a minimum of £215,000 each for them, and another £86,000 each for the twins. It is thought any money they get will go to the Maddie fund.
Amaral's book has sold around 330,000 copies worldwide. The father-of-three has become a celeb in Portugal, and has a new Jaguar.
The McCanns say his "sole objectives" in writing the book were "to earn a lot of money", using "lies".
It says the book and his 50-minute documentary, which has been shown twice on Portuguese TV, are "manipulative, perverse, false, destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and therefore illegal".
Amaral was in charge of the 30 detectives looking for Madeleine after she vanished in May 2007 on a family holiday in Praia da Luz.
He was largely responsible for making the McCanns "arguidos" - suspects - four months after Madeleine vanished. But he was kicked off the case in October 2007 days after the Sunday Mirror revealed he was working as little as four hours a day and was enjoying long, boozy lunches.
He was removed from the case on his 48th birthday. Amaral took early retirement shortly afterwards, ending 27 years on the force.
He began writing his book, promoting it by travelling around Europe giving newspaper interviews.
It went on sale in a blaze of publicity in July last year - three days after the McCanns' "arguido" status was removed. Earlier this month Amaral was charged with torturing a witness during a separate missing child case. He faces jail if convicted.
WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING
£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.
£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.
£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
lets hope they get every penny...they certainly deserve it.
-
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
There is the quantifiable damage, for proven lies, distortions and falsehoods.
-
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
There is the quantifiable damage, for proven lies, distortions and falsehoods.
What proven lies, distortions and falsehoods ?
Prove it ferryman,
-
"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear".
Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
I've already pointed out that Brenda Leyland (tragically) might have taken her own life.
She had clearly suffered damage pretty severe to take a step that extreme.
Had she lived, how would you have expected her to 'prove' it?
-
What proven lies, distortions and falsehoods ?
Prove it ferryman, your posts are becoming increasingly desperate.
What's he missing is the bit that goes before all that, the most important bit. He needs the McCann's legal team to prove the libel and quantify their claims.
If you can't do that then the damages which follow is of no relevance.
And Angus Mcbride's comments on the stand sum up the McCann's ability to prove their claims.
-
"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear".
Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
she's much too strong a women to do any of that....you can't help but admire her
-
What's he missing is the bit that goes before all that, the most important bit. He needs the McCann's legal team to prove the libel and quantify their claims.
If you can't do that then the damages which follow is of no relevance.
And Angus Mcbride's comments on the stand sum up the McCann's ability to prove their claims.
They don't need to prove libel and the judge will quantify the claims...simple
-
"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear".
Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
Isn't it funny how Kate made no mention of these conditions as a result of Amaral's book in her own book.
The only comments I can find relate solely to her slightly disturbing pathological hatred of him.
-
What's he missing is the bit that goes before all that, the most important bit. He needs the McCann's legal team to prove the libel and quantify their claims.
If you can't do that then the damages which follow is of no relevance.
And Angus Mcbride's comments on the stand sum up the McCann's ability to prove their claims.
Damage is quantified by Amaral's ill-gotten-gains ....
And damage? Well, self-evident ...
-
They don't need to prove libel and the judge will quantify the claims...simple
They have to provide proof to substantiate their claim of libel.
-
What's he missing is the bit that goes before all that, the most important bit. He needs the McCann's legal team to prove the libel and quantify their claims.
If you can't do that then the damages which follow is of no relevance.
And Angus Mcbride's comments on the stand sum up the McCann's ability to prove their claims.
....and that Albertini, sums it up.
-
They have to provide proof to substantiate their claim of libel.
Amaral's book is a good starting point.
There might be the odd page that doesn't contain libel, but not many ...
-
Challenging Amaral in a libel case obviously makes the parents feel good about each other. The attacks on him by their agents Metodo are well documented so I am just a little surprised that this information hasn't found its way to the libel court yet. Could this be yet to come, is this the ace up his sleeve??
-
Damage is quantified by Amaral's ill-gotten-gains ....
And damage? Well, self-evident ...
No, no and no.
They have to prove that a book judged in a previous hearing not to have impinged upon their rights suddenly did then impinge on their rights.
Then they put forward their damages claim.
It can never be self evident that a book judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts of the case can suddenly be seen as not valid.
Particularly when the plaintiff (or respondents if your prefer) legal team have produced zip in the way of evidence other than opinion and hearsay from family and employees who can hardly be viewed as impartial.
-
Amaral's book is a good starting point.
There might be the odd page that doesn't contain libel, but not many ...
But yet in two separate court cases Duarte has spectacularly failed to demonstrate any.
Are you sure she's up to the job if it's as clear cut as you're trying to suggest?
-
No, no and no.
They have to prove that a book judged in a previous hearing not to have impinged upon their rights suddenly did then impinge on their rights.
Then they put forward their damages claim.
It can never be self evident that a book judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts of the case can suddenly be seen as not valid.
Particularly when the plaintiff (or respondents if your prefer) legal team have produced zip in the way of evidence other than opinion and hearsay from family and employees who can hardly be viewed as impartial.
A book judged (eventually) on appeal to have ascendency to that part of the Portuguese Constitution that allows freedom of expression over the (conflicting) right of citizens to a good name ...
-
....and that Albertini, sums it up.
And for the record let's have a brief look at this devastating evidence produced by the team through their "media expert" Mcbride:
Defence Lawyer: I would like to know, for comparison’s sake, about the impact following the disappearance, the arguido status and the book respectively.
Angus Macbride: Says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.
The judge comments she wasn't expecting Mr McBride to pop up with numbers in his pocket.
Defence Lawyer: So when you say that the book had a growing impact, it's just your opinion?
Angus McBride: Yes.
Defence Lawyer: So the impact on the search is also an opinion?
Angus MacBride: It’s a judgement, it's common sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haha!! Devastating for Amaral.
-
But yet in two separate court cases Duarte has spectacularly failed to demonstrate any.
Are you sure she's up to the job if it's as clear cut as you're trying to suggest?
I don't think you know what Isobel Duarte has so far demonstrated. I certainly don't.
-
And for the record let's have a brief look at this devastating evidence produced by the team through their "media expert" Mcbride:
Defence Lawyer: I would like to know, for comparison’s sake, about the impact following the disappearance, the arguido status and the book respectively.
Angus Macbride: Says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.
The judge comments she wasn't expecting Mr McBride to pop up with numbers in his pocket.
Defence Lawyer: So when you say that the book had a growing impact, it's just your opinion?
Angus McBride: Yes.
Defence Lawyer: So the impact on the search is also an opinion?
Angus MacBride: It’s a judgement, it's common sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haha!! Devastating for Amaral.
I await ferryman's riposte.
-
A book judged (eventually) on appeal to have ascendency to that part of the Portuguese Constitution that allows freedom of expression over the (conflicting) right of citizens to a good name ...
Dear lord it's like Groundhog Day here.
How many times do you need to be quoted the part of the judgement which states the publication if he book did not affect the fundamental rights of the applicants?
Not "we weighed up the rights of both and in balance Amaral's rights were greater than the McCann's".
The judgement stated their rights were NOT AFFECTED.
-
I don't think you know what Isobel Duarte has so far demonstrated. I certainly don't.
But if she had torn strips off hat judgement would it not have been reported in the transcripts? I didn't see any, did you?
-
Dear lord it's like Groundhog Day here.
How many times do you need to be quoted the part of the judgement which states the publication if he book did not affect the fundamental rights of the applicants?
Not "we weighed up the rights of both and in balance Amaral's rights were greater than the McCann's".
The judgement stated their rights were NOT AFFECTED.
How many times do you need to be told?
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.
I guess Ms Esteves was also being ironic and the second part of her statement, was she?
-
But if she had torn strips off hat judgement would it not have been reported in the transcripts? I didn't see any, did you?
Who is doing The Transcripts? That might be the question.
-
Who is doing The Transcripts? That might be the question.
So are you saying there was something said but it was mistranslated or that something was said but not reported?
-
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.
I guess Ms Esteves was also being ironic and the second part of her statement, was she?
Given that Ms Eateves was representing a defendant in the same boat as Amaral, yes she was being ironic.
-
I await ferryman's riposte.
Let's not forget Susan Hubbards abject humiliation and headlong fall into a giant bear trap:
Defence Lawyer: How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Defence Lawyer: Then we could expect the same reaction after the book was published
Oops!! She fell for that one!
-
Who is doing The Transcripts? That might be the question.
That old cookie won't wear Eleanor. Had Duarte made any significant advances it would have been reflected not only in the court reports but also in the press. Have you seen any such reports?
-
We know that the FSS established Madeleine's DNA from a sample of saliva recovered from Madeleine's pillow
A slight doubt, raised by the FSS, that the profile might have been Amelie's, was resolved easily by taking Ameilie's DNA and comparing it with the DNA from the pillow.
The two profiles were different, confirming they had Madeleine's DNA.
Now read this exchange between Amaral and the Portuguese Forensic laboratory.
7th August 2007
The present inquiry is in relation to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May from P da L.
The English authorities in possession of elements collected from the family home in Leicestershire, which are being examined in an unidentified laboratory, traced the girl's DNA profile, in annex to this document.
As it is necessary to the investigation we request the following:
1. Whether in the tests done by the INML Madeleine's profile was established?
2. In the case of a positive answer to point 1, that it should be determined whether the girl is the daughter of the parents identified ? Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Healy.
3. Information about whether the profile obtained by the INML corresponds to the profile traced in the English laboratory, on the request of the British authorities.
4. If there are differences between the English and Portuguese profiles that a report should be drawn up for this inquiry.
5. In the follow-up of point 4, we request to be informed whether in the English profile the girl is the daughter of the McCann couple.
6. Other information that might be of use to the investigation.
Signed G. Amaral
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419
And the response:
Vol IX Page 2419
Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral
22-08-2007
Reply to Queries
- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.
- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.
- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.
- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.
- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out.
Signed
A short while later, Gerry not Madeleine's Father broke ...
-
Who is doing The Transcripts? That might be the question.
I believe it was AG, Eleanor.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html
-
From what I have read, it appears that this case is being judged in a lower court than the last appeal, where it was deemed, that the basic rights of the family were not damaged by the book and the appeal was lost by the McCanns.
A lower court can not overrule a high court, so what are the plaintiffs appeal contents, which are now having evidence presented in court, in readiness for the eventual judgement?
Does anyone know for sure?
Hasn’t there already been a trial for defamation in which they lost?
Is it only the damages that are being claimed, for the pain and suffering caused by the book and the fact that the search for a live, Maddie was abandoned, because the only theory that was present, was the death and concealment? If this is the case, why are the contents of the book coming into question again?
Some witnesses have given evidence to establish how the book has caused pain and suffering to the family and to do so, it was necessary to travel to Portugal, however somebody suggested that witnesses from Portugal could do this…………..How?
Sorry for all the questions, but to be honest I’m as much in the dark about this libel case, as I suspect many others on here are.
Some even talk as if they were there in the court room during the hearing.
All we really know at present is…Hearsay.
-
And lets not forget pikes classic faux pas.
Apologies but my iPhone won't cut and paste for some reason so I'll
Manually type it there or thereabouts:
Pike: they were surprised with the book because the final report said they were innocent.
Defence lawyer: have you read the final report
Pike: no
Defence lawyer: how do you know what's its conclusions were?
pike: says the McCann's told him.
Stupid boy pike!
-
Didn't Amaral admit he hadn't read the Final Report either? The one his book is supposedly based on?
-
So are you saying there was something said but it was mistranslated or that something was said but not reported?
Probably both. But I don't actually know.
-
And lets not forget pikes classic faux pas.
Apologies but my iPhone won't cut and paste for some reason so I'll
Manually type it there or thereabouts:
Pike: they were surprised with the book because the final report said they were innocent.
Defence lawyer: have you read the final report
Pike: no
Defence lawyer: how do you know what's its conclusions were?
pike: says the McCann's told him.
Stupid boy pike!
Anne Guides' report ...
-
Didn't Amaral admit he hadn't read the Final Report either? The one his book is supposedly based on?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg205760#msg205760
-
That old cookie won't wear Eleanor. Had Duarte made any significant advances it would have been reflected not only in the court reports but also in the press. Have you seen any such reports?
Only in your opinion, Sweetling. We don't actually know half of what is going on.
-
Let's not forget Susan Hubbards abject humiliation and headlong fall into a giant bear trap:
Defence Lawyer: How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Defence Lawyer: Then we could expect the same reaction after the book was published
Oops!! She fell for that one!
Can we have her reply please? I don't see why you think this was a trap - there is a huge difference between not fearing being made arguidos when you know you are innocent and are confident that the legal process will arrive at the same conclusion and the feelings of anger, despair, frustration you would feel about a book read by thousands that claimed to tell the truth about you but which in reality was a pack of lies, exploiting your miising child and written for a profit.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg205760#msg205760
Amaral had to admit that, because he was booted off before it was written.
-
They have to provide proof to substantiate their claim of libel.
no they don't...they have been accused of a criminal act.......that's libel per se
-
no they don't...they have been accused of a criminal act.......that's libel per se
Whether they have to prove it or not, they can.
That's all that matters ...
-
Anne Guides' report ...
Oh. That's right, if in trouble it's them tranzlators wot dunnit.
The de facto fall back for any flapping mccann supporter.
-
Oh. That's right, if in trouble it's them tranzlators wot dunnit.
The de facto fall back for any flapping mccann supporter.
Anne botched up royally on Alan Pike's testimony.
-
Can we have her reply please? I don't see why you think this was a trap - there is a huge difference between not fearing being made arguidos when you know you are innocent and are confident that the legal process will arrive at the same conclusion and the feelings of anger, despair, frustration you would feel about a book read by thousands that claimed to tell the truth about you but which in reality was a pack of lies, exploiting your miising child and written for a profit.
Google it.
Huge difference you say? If they were so unfearful of the Arguido status why did Kate state in her book:
"Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy."
-
Oh. That's right, if in trouble it's them tranzlators wot dunnit.
The de facto fall back for any flapping mccann supporter.
If a tenth of what you believe was true amaral would be cock a hoop...yet you can see he is a broken man... I am wondering how you are going to explain how you got everything so wrong once the verdict comes out...it will be something to look forward to
-
no they don't...they have been accused of a criminal act.......that's libel per se
Case closed then Dave!
Pity those darn appeal judges made it clear the book did not impinge the McCann's rights and drove a coach and horses through your argument.
If you were right the judges would have upheld the book ban wouldn't they?
-
Case closed then Dave!
Pity those darn appeal judges made it clear the book did not impinge the McCann's rights and drove a coach and horses through your argument.
If you were right the judges would have upheld the book ban wouldn't they?
Either they didn't read the book or they didn't read the files.
-
If a tenth of what you believe was true amaral would be cock a hoop...yet you can see he is a broken man... I am wondering how you are going to explain how you got everything so wrong once the verdict comes out...it will be something to look forward to
I have stated what I believe and why I believe it.
I've quoted the appeals court ruling. I've quoted the testimonies of the McCann's witnesses.
I've yet to hear of any sensible rebuttal.
Whys that I wonder?
-
Google it.
Huge difference you say? If they were so unfearful of the Arguido status why did Kate state in her book:
"Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy."
They didn't though did they?
-
Either they didn't read the book or they didn't read the files.
You're going down the same road as funnyman?
Please don't my sides have only just stopped hurting from his pronouncements about him being right and the judges being wrong.
-
I have stated what I believe and why I believe it.
I've quoted the appeals court ruling. I've quoted the testimonies of the McCann's witnesses.
I've yet to hear of any sensible rebuttal.
Whys that I wonder?
You've yet to understand any sensible rebuttal, which is quite different.
-
Can we have her reply please? I don't see why you think this was a trap - there is a huge difference between not fearing being made arguidos when you know you are innocent and are confident that the legal process will arrive at the same conclusion and the feelings of anger, despair, frustration you would feel about a book read by thousands that claimed to tell the truth about you but which in reality was a pack of lies, exploiting your miising child and written for a profit.
2) Defence lawyers.
a) TVI lawyers' questions
TVI - You said that "everybody in Portugal believes the book". What makes you think this?
SH - says that in PDL some people believe Kate and Gerald, but outside they don't.
TVI - Do you suppose so? Have you any objective basis to think so?
SH - says she has knows a Portuguese nurse, in the hospital where she works in Canada, who believes what the book says.
TVI - Do you know if this book and the documentary were broadcast at the same moment?
SH - says when one and the other were launched.
TVI - Are the thesis identical?
SH - notes that in the documentary the actors representing Kate and Gerald were depicted drinking a lot, but the underlying theories are similar. She adds one must pay for the book whereas the access to the documentary is free.
TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
The judge overrules : the issue is "what kind of effect?"
b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions
VC - You don't know if Madeleine died. Your conviction is she's alive. The idea that something happened to her other than abduction is also a possibility. Do you think the McCanns are angry because such a theory exists that is different from theirs?
SH - hesitates, then says she doesn't think so, refers to the loss of hope.
VC – Have you seen the TVI documentary, have you read the final conclusion?
The judge overrules.
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP - first asks if Susan Hubbard knows Gonçalo Amaral and when she met the McCanns for the first time.
SH - answers she once saw Gonçalo Amaral somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
GP - We could then expect the same reaction after the book was published. You, as a close friend who saw them almost every day, must know better than anyone. How did they react when they were made arguidos?
SH - answers they wanted to protect the twins and didn't know what to do. They thought of taking them to Spain. They reacted with sadness (Gerry McCann with anger) because the police wouldn't be looking for their daughter.
GP - Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine?
SH - answers yes.
GP - And after the book was published?
SH - answers yes.
-
They didn't though did they?
Doesn't matter though does it. The Arguido status was so worrying for them that they actually contemplated doing a runner.
Then wrote about it.
Blows a pretty big hole in their witnesses statements that it didn't bother them and they were expecting it.
It begs the question that if they were expecting to be made Arguidos and it was normal procedure why would you feel the need to even contemplate a midnight flit?
-
If a tenth of what you believe was true amaral would be cock a hoop...yet you can see he is a broken man... I am wondering how you are going to explain how you got everything so wrong once the verdict comes out...it will be something to look forward to
Not for me, it won't. The winning will be enough. But then I will manage even if they lose. I will still believe that they did no harm to Madeleine.
I don't care all that much about Amaral one way or the other.
-
Let's not forget Susan Hubbards abject humiliation and headlong fall into a giant bear trap:
Defence Lawyer: How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Defence Lawyer: Then we could expect the same reaction after the book was published
Oops!! She fell for that one!
I have googled and found this http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html. Can you point out where the defence lawyer says what you have quoted please.
-
2) Defence lawyers.
a) TVI lawyers' questions
TVI - You said that "everybody in Portugal believes the book". What makes you think this?
SH - says that in PDL some people believe Kate and Gerald, but outside they don't.
TVI - Do you suppose so? Have you any objective basis to think so?
SH - says she has knows a Portuguese nurse, in the hospital where she works in Canada, who believes what the book says.
TVI - Do you know if this book and the documentary were broadcast at the same moment?
SH - says when one and the other were launched.
TVI - Are the thesis identical?
SH - notes that in the documentary the actors representing Kate and Gerald were depicted drinking a lot, but the underlying theories are similar. She adds one must pay for the book whereas the access to the documentary is free.
TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
The judge overrules : the issue is "what kind of effect?"
b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions
VC - You don't know if Madeleine died. Your conviction is she's alive. The idea that something happened to her other than abduction is also a possibility. Do you think the McCanns are angry because such a theory exists that is different from theirs?
SH - hesitates, then says she doesn't think so, refers to the loss of hope.
VC – Have you seen the TVI documentary, have you read the final conclusion?
The judge overrules.
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP - first asks if Susan Hubbard knows Gonçalo Amaral and when she met the McCanns for the first time.
SH - answers she once saw Gonçalo Amaral somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
GP - We could then expect the same reaction after the book was published. You, as a close friend who saw them almost every day, must know better than anyone. How did they react when they were made arguidos?
SH - answers they wanted to protect the twins and didn't know what to do. They thought of taking them to Spain. They reacted with sadness (Gerry McCann with anger) because the police wouldn't be looking for their daughter.
GP - Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine?
SH - answers yes.
GP - And after the book was published?
SH - answers yes.
Thanks for this - see my post above about the midnight flit:
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
So no fear but contemplating a dash for the Spanish border?
So who's not telling the truth?
Susan or Kate?
-
I have googled and found this http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html. Can you point out where the defence lawyer says what you have quoted please.
It's in your post
-
Not for me, it won't. The winning will be enough. But then I will manage even if they lose. I will still believe that they did no harm to Madeleine.
I don't care all that much about Amaral one way or the other.
I look forward to several posters on here being proven wrong when the result of the libel trial is known....purely because it will show how poor their judgement is....
-
Doesn't matter though does it. The Arguido status was so worrying for them that they actually contemplated doing a runner.
Then wrote about it.
Blows a pretty big hole in their witnesses statements that it didn't bother them and they were expecting it.
It begs the question that if they were expecting to be made Arguidos and it was normal procedure why would you feel the need to even contemplate a midnight flit?
Of course being made an arguido would worry them and yes I'm sure they were fearful - but they did not run, they faced their fear and they came through it, arguido status lifted. I think it was remarkably candid of Kate to describe how they felt about it, and it is possible to experience a change in emotions over the course of a few hours and days - it's part of being human.
-
Of course being made an arguido would worry them and yes I'm sure they were fearful - but they did not run, they faced their fear and they came through it, arguido status lifted. I think it was remarkably candid of Kate to describe how they felt about it, and it is possible to experience a change in emotions over the course of a few hours and days - it's part of being human.
But their witnesses said precisely the opposite about the Arguido status.
Why is that?
-
I look forward to several posters on here being proven wrong when the result of the libel trial is known....purely because it will show how poor their judgement is....
Apart from their right to express an opinion, I am not all that interested in their judgment. But I might be interested in how they react if they are proven to be wrong.
I just hope that there won't be too much gloating going on.
-
You've yet to understand any sensible rebuttal, which is quite different.
No you've produced the square root of b....r all apart from stating you are right and those imbecile judges are wrong.
You've produced nothing of substance.
-
Thanks for this - see my post above about the midnight flit:
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
So no fear but contemplating a dash for the Spanish border?
So who's not telling the truth?
Susan or Kate?
Did Kate say fear was their reason for contemplating leaving for Spain?
-
But their witnesses said precisely the opposite about the Arguido status.
Why is that?
You'd have to ask them. There's no point speculating but if I had to I would say it's because that was their opinion.
-
Thanks for this - see my post above about the midnight flit:
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
So no fear but contemplating a dash for the Spanish border?
So who's not telling the truth?
Susan or Kate?
Kate did say that they had considered (In a moment of weakness) getting in the car and driving over the border.
I find that understandable in the circumstances. They were in a foreign country with limited support and had two babies to tend. If it were I, I would be out of there, pronto.
It is no secret that they considered this and therefore not news to any of us. Its even in Kate's book, I believe.
Maybe it was at a later date that Kate discussed it with SH.
-
Apart from their right to express an opinion, I am not all that interested in their judgment. But I might be interested in how they react if they are proven to be wrong.
I just hope that there won't be too much gloating going on.
When the McCanns are handed victory in the libel trial, the "victory" will be confirmation of what has been all too obvious to at least some of us for ages: that the people the McCanns relied on most to help them find Madeleine double-crossed and betrayed them most cruelly.
I would expect that to be a cause of unimaginable heartbreak and fury.
-
Did Kate say fear was their reason for contemplating leaving for Spain?
Why else would one contemplate a flit to the Spanish border under the cover of darkness?
For s***s and giggles?
-
Apart from their right to express an opinion, I am not all that interested in their judgment. But I might be interested in how they react if they are proven to be wrong.
I just hope that there won't be too much gloating going on.
&%+((£ It will be a veritable gloat-fest whatever the outcome, that is 100% guaranteed.
-
You'd have to ask them. There's no point speculating but if I had to I would say it's because that was their opinion.
So wouldn't that mean the witnesses statements as to the damage done to the McCann's by the book is unreliable or false?
Because if the witnesses felt they weren't concerned by the Arguido status but Kate says they actually thought about doing a runner then clearly they aren't able to accurately judge their moods and feelings.
Their whole assessments as to the state of the McCann's well being is worthless junk.
-
Why else would one contemplate a flit to the Spanish border under the cover of darkness?
For s***s and giggles?
Don't be flippant. Kate gave a reason did she not? To keep the family together I believe was the reason, as a threat of possie arrest and detention loomed over them.
-
Don't be flippant. Kate gave a reason did she not? To keep the family together I believe was the reason, as a threat of possie arrest and detention loomed over them.
So the Arguido status did worry them then, yes or no?
-
So wouldn't that mean the witnesses statements as to the damage done to the McCann's by the book is unreliable or false?
Because if the witnesses felt they weren't concerned by the Arguido status but Kate says they actually thought about doing a runner then clearly they aren't able to accurately judge their moods and feelings.
Their whole assessments as to the state of the McCann's well being is worthless junk.
That's your opinion and IMO your opinion falls into the same category, more so as you are relying on not entirely impartial court transcripts for your information. Who else would be in s better position to give evidence about the effect of the book on the mcCanns' well-being than those who know them best? Do you think you're in a better position to say how it affected them?
-
So the Arguido status did worry them then, yes or no?
Christ, I feel like I'm in the witness box now. Kindly dial down the aggressive cross-questioning. I think I have already answered this.
-
So the Arguido status did worry them then, yes or no?
Of course it didn't.
Anyone on this forum would be gung-ho brimming and overflowing with joy to be formally accused of causing the death of their own daughter, concealing her body and launching a fraudulent fund in her name ...
-
Of course it didn't.
Anyone on this forum would be gung-ho brimming and overflowing with joy to be formally accused of causing the death of their own daughter, concealing her body and launching a fraudulent fund in her name ...
It would obviously feel like scenes from Kafka's The Trial...
-
Of course it didn't.
Anyone on this forum would be gung-ho brimming and overflowing with joy to be formally accused of causing the death of their own daughter, concealing her body and launching a fraudulent fund in her name ...
So why did Susan Hubbard say it didn't bother them?
Why did Michael wright say it wasn't a preoccupation?
Either these witnesses didn't know the McCann's state of mind or they did and weren't telling the truth to the court.
Which is it?
-
Christ, I feel like I'm in the witness box now. Kindly dial down the aggressive cross-questioning. I think I have already answered this.
Don't be such a drama queen. It's a discussion forum for heavens sake. I asked you a simple question with a simple yes or no answer required.
I've no idea how you've translated that into aggressive cross questioning.
-
TORN APART BY HIS LIES
Sunday Mirror
July 12, 2009
MADDIE PARENTS SUE COP FOR £1M BOOK PROFITS
By TOM WORDEN
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the police chief who bungled the investigation into their daughter's disappearance - and blamed them for her death - for £1million.
In a 36-page writ handed to the Sunday Mirror, they lay bare in painful detail how Gonçalo Amaral's accusations left them "totally destroyed" and caused them "irreparable" damage.
It also gives a harrowing insight into the day-to-day life in the McCann household as they struggle to cope without Madeleine.
The writ - which the Sunday Mirror has had translated from Portuguese - outlines how the couple both suffer from "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear". It also says Kate McCann is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".
Disgraced former police Amaral has pocketed £ 1million writing a lurid book and making a documentary full of cruel lies about Madeliene and her parents. And now they are suing him for every penny of it.
He accuses them of accidentally killing their three-year-old daughter and then covering up her death.
Amaral, who was thrown off case after five months, has repeatedly claimed Madeleine died in the holiday apartment on Algarve. In his book The Truth About The Lie he spouts his absurd theory that the couple hid their daughter's body.
The lawsuit also highlights their fears for four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie when they start school later this year and begin to hear rumours that Madeleine is dead.
And it accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.
The couple, both 41, have hired Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte to sue Amaral for defamation and for breaching their human rights. Mrs Duarte, 54, said: "Somebody has to stop him and shut him up. He is a rich man now, earning millions from the distress of this family. We believe he has made up to 1.2million euros (£1million) from the book and the video. We want the court to punish him by taking at least that much from him."
The McCanns have a good case for defamation as they have already been cleared by Portugal's Attorney General. The case will go to trial in Lisbon next summer and Amaral, 49, could force the McCanns to take the stand. Madeleine is named with Kate and Gerry and the twins as a complainant in the lawsuit, lodged on June 24.
The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leics, claim Amaral's repeated insistence that their daughter is dead has stopped people looking for her. The lawsuit states: "Madeleine has been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at serious risk."
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
The couple want a minimum of £430,000 in damages for Madeleine, which will be used to keep the search for her going. They also want a minimum of £215,000 each for them, and another £86,000 each for the twins. It is thought any money they get will go to the Maddie fund.
Amaral's book has sold around 330,000 copies worldwide. The father-of-three has become a celeb in Portugal, and has a new Jaguar.
The McCanns say his "sole objectives" in writing the book were "to earn a lot of money", using "lies".
It says the book and his 50-minute documentary, which has been shown twice on Portuguese TV, are "manipulative, perverse, false, destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and therefore illegal".
Amaral was in charge of the 30 detectives looking for Madeleine after she vanished in May 2007 on a family holiday in Praia da Luz.
He was largely responsible for making the McCanns "arguidos" - suspects - four months after Madeleine vanished. But he was kicked off the case in October 2007 days after the Sunday Mirror revealed he was working as little as four hours a day and was enjoying long, boozy lunches.
He was removed from the case on his 48th birthday. Amaral took early retirement shortly afterwards, ending 27 years on the force.
He began writing his book, promoting it by travelling around Europe giving newspaper interviews.
It went on sale in a blaze of publicity in July last year - three days after the McCanns' "arguido" status was removed. Earlier this month Amaral was charged with torturing a witness during a separate missing child case. He faces jail if convicted.
WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING
£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.
£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.
£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.
HOW HE MADE HIS MONEY
£500,000 from the book which has sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone.
£430,000 from the extra 150,000 books which have been sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
£100,000 for a TV documentary watched by one in five people in Portugal - 75,000 copies have sold on DVD.
Cheers for that.
The time to generate the writ seems to have been unconscionably long. Assuming of course they were off the blocks when the book was first released.
I guess it is a random coincidence that the monetary value of damages sought approximates to the estimated income Dr Amaral made from the book etc.
Well the plaintiffs will need to prove the nature and extent of the damage caused which may prove difficult in the light of the evidence given by some witnesses.
-
Don't be such a drama queen. It's a discussion forum for heavens sake. I asked you a simple question with a simple yes or no question.
I've no idea how you've translated that into aggressive cross questioning.
I hadn't raised you were such a delicate flower.
A question which I had already answered on the previous page. Demanding answers with a yes or no is aggressive in my opinion and that's how you are coming across. Here is my final opinion for tonight - you can cross examine me further tomorrow if you wish:
I believe the McCanns probably were quite fearful at being made arguidos and at what that might entail, that would be only natural. However, during the arguido questioning Kate recounts how she began to relax when she realised that the PJ had absolutely no evidence on them and that her confidence and strength grew. I would say (purely speculatively) that at this point she ceased to be afraid of being an arguido, even more so when they had returned home, and that is why Susan Hubbard quite rightly said they were not afraid because they knew they were innocent. Pick the bones out of that and spit them back at me tomorrow @)(++(*
-
A question which I had already answered on the previous page. Demanding answers with a yes or no is aggressive in my opinion and that's how you are coming across. Here is my final opinion for tonight - you can cross examine me further tomorrow if you wish:
I believe the McCanns probably were quite fearful at being made arguidos and at what that might entail, that would be only natural. However, during the arguido questioning Kate recounts how she began to relax when she realised that the PJ had absolutely no evidence on them and that her confidence and strength grew. I would say (purely speculatively) that at this point she ceased to be afraid of being an arguido, even more so when they had returned home, and that is why Susan Hubbard quite rightly said they were not afraid because they knew they were innocent. Pick the bones out of that and spit them back at me tomorrow @)(++(*
No need to wait look at the questions:
GP - asks if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma.
AP - says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
You'll note the question relates to being made or constituted Arguidos. Not how they felt later in the process.
But hats off for a valiant attempt at swerving it.
-
No need to wait look at the questions:
GP - asks if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma.
AP - says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
You'll note the question relates to being made or constituted Arguidos. Not how they felt later in the process.
But hats off for a valiant attempt at swerving it.
Perhaps albertini could explain why amaral has called so many witnesses to to support his theory if it has already been decided its not libellous...it's because it hasn't
-
No need to wait look at the questions:
GP - asks if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma.
AP - says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
You'll note the question relates to being made or constituted Arguidos. Not how they felt later in the process.
But hats off for a valiant attempt at swerving it.
I'm not swerving anything, I'm giving my opinion (admittedly from a position of ignorance as I am neither Susan Hubbard, nor the McCanns). why do you have to be so binary about things? "Who was lying - Kate or Susan?" Well, neither in my opinion. And that's because what was being expressed WAS opinions, which differ from person to person and over time and in retrospect. If you don't understand that, well, What more can I say.
-
No need to wait look at the questions:
GP - asks if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma.
AP - says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
You'll note the question relates to being made or constituted Arguidos. Not how they felt later in the process.
But hats off for a valiant attempt at swerving it.
When will posters realise the importance of context in the meaning of a statement...it's only a basic concept. If you take a statement out of context you can completely change it's meaning
-
We are told in the writ that the McCanns were suffering from severe depression and anxiety, so why was no evidence presented to prove this ? No statement from their doctor detailing the help sought and help given. No reports from psychiatrists or, proper, psychologists visited. When you lodge a personal injuries claim the first thing your solicitor will do is have the effect the accident has had on your mental health assessed so why on earth wasn't that done by the McCanns.
-
We are told in the writ that the McCanns were suffering from severe depression and anxiety, so why was no evidence presented to prove this ? No statement from their doctor detailing the help sought and help given. No reports from psychiatrists or, proper, psychologists visited. When you lodge a personal injuries claim the first thing your solicitor will do is have the effect the accident has had on your mental health assessed so why on earth was that done by the McCanns.
It has been said that much evidence was submitted to the court in written form. It would be quite reasonable not to want personal medical information splashed across the papers. The court may well have agreed to this...we don't know
-
Amaral looks and acts like a beaten man yet posters here seem to think he has no case to answer. All will hopefully be revealed next month
-
Amaral looks and acts like a beaten man yet posters here seem to think he has no case to answer. All will hopefully be revealed next month
Really ?
Judging by the events in court, the mccanns are fearing a humiliating defeat, hence the call for extra witnesses, as they have not as Albertini,Faithlilly and others have stated, been able to justify their claims.
Shame, isn't it.
-
Here is (an) example of why the McCanns will win:
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
(Gonclao Amaral, Truth of the Lie)
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Mark Harrison, penultimate sentence and paragraph of his third and final report
And yet the woman at the trial was being "ironic" when she said that much of Amaral's book seems to be invented?
And according to the venerable sage Albertini on this forum, the final ruling lifting the injunction on Amaral's book that Amaral's book is faithful to the files is inviolate?
-
Here is (an) example of why the McCanns will win:
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
(Gonclao Amaral, Truth of the Lie)
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Mark Harrison, penultimate sentence and paragraph of his third and final report
And yet the woman at the trial was being "ironic" when she said that much of Amaral's book seems to be invented?
And according to the venerable sage Albertini on this forum, the final ruling lifting the injunction on Amaral's book that Amaral's book is faithful to the files is inviolate?
As per usual ferryman, you are clutching at straws.
The reason for Madeleine's disappearance is unknown, and until that is determined, several 'options' remain on the table.
How do you whether or not the woman at the trail was being ironic ?
-
It has been said that much evidence was submitted to the court in written form. It would be quite reasonable not to want personal medical information splashed across the papers. The court may well have agreed to this...we don't know
Who has said that much evidence has been submitted to the court in written form ? Cite please ?
-
Even Amaral's (latest in a long line of) lawyers seems to have given up on the theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup line:
But Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, for Mr Amaral, said the McCanns were suing 'to rid themselves of guilt for their negligent conduct and their conduct in relation to the investigation.
He added: 'There was a lack of cooperation with the police authorities.
'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868798/Former-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-earned-hundreds-thousands-writing-distortions-conspiracy-theories-book-case.html#ixzz3M93Hpfgl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Rodrigues seems to be plugging the "neglect"(non-issue), of course, dismissed by the prosecutors.
-
Even Amaral's (latest in a long line of) lawyers seems to have given up on the theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup line:
But Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, for Mr Amaral, said the McCanns were suing 'to rid themselves of guilt for their negligent conduct and their conduct in relation to the investigation.
He added: 'There was a lack of cooperation with the police authorities.
'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868798/Former-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-earned-hundreds-thousands-writing-distortions-conspiracy-theories-book-case.html#ixzz3M93Hpfgl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Rodrigues seems to be plugging the "neglect"(non-issue), of course, dismissed by the prosecutors.
What will you do ferryman when the McCann's lose their case ?
-
It has been said that much evidence was submitted to the court in written form. It would be quite reasonable not to want personal medical information splashed across the papers. The court may well have agreed to this...we don't know
Wrong! The only written evidence given were reports from Trickey and Pike after they had been on the witness stand. The judge had refused to accept them but on appeal they were admitted. But, even if they were admitted, the judge does not have to take them into consideration when she makes her decision. These reports were given afterwards so that the defence could not question Trickey and Pike about the contents. Also, these witnesses are not qualified psychologists.
-
Wrong! The only written evidence given were reports from Trickey and Pike after they had been on the witness stand. The judge had refused to accept them but on appeal they were admitted. But, even if they were admitted, the judge does not have to take them into consideration when she makes her decision. These reports were given afterwards so that the defence could not question Trickey and Pike about the contents. Also, these witnesses are not qualified psychologists or doctors.
Exactly Montclair. Why no report from their own doctor or a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist ?
-
Wrong! The only written evidence given were reports from Trickey and Pike after they had been on the witness stand. The judge had refused to accept them but on appeal they were admitted. But, even if they were admitted, the judge does not have to take them into consideration when she makes her decision. These reports were given afterwards so that the defence could not question Trickey and Pike about the contents. Also, these witnesses are not qualified psychologists.
I take everything you say with a large pinch of salt...you don't even realise this is a libel trial....
you say I am wrong re written submissions then admit that there are written submissions and that they were admitted
-
Really ?
Judging by the events in court, the mccanns are fearing a humiliating defeat, hence the call for extra witnesses, as they have not as Albertini,Faithlilly and others have stated, been able to justify their claims.
Shame, isn't it.
so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements..... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I take everything you say with a large pinch of salt...you don't even realise this is a libel trial....
you say I am wrong re written submissions then admit that there are written submissions and that they were admitted
You don't even realise that this is a damages trial!
-
Who has said that much evidence has been submitted to the court in written form ? Cite please ?
Montclair now agrees
-
You don't even realise that this is a damages trial!
it's both...and libel has not yet been decided...you will look quite silly if as I predict the judge in this trial rules on defemation..I'm looking forward to it
-
Montclair now agrees
So do you have a cite or not davel ?
-
How can this trial be just about damages? If so then surely that is acknowledgement that damaged has been suffered!
-
How can this trial be just about damages? If so then surely that is acknowledgement that damaged has been suffered!
In the legal systems, certainly of England and Portugal, I daresay, the whole world, damages are awarded for something.
In the present trial, that something is libel, aggravated by hindrance to the search for a missing little girl by promoting the fiction as if "fact" that her parents know she is dead, caused her death, concealed her body and launched a fraudulent "fund" in her name.
Inevitably, if that lie is swallowed, the search for Madeleine will be hindered, because the widespread belief will be that Madeleine is dead and theMcCannsdunit.
Who would trouble to look then?
-
so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements..... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You're really worried aren't you Dave ?
What will you do when you lose the court case? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I'm not at all confident that the McCanns will win their case. If the case was being conducted under UK law - then I think the McCanns would have won hands down and rightly so - but I gave up trying to understand PT law long ago.
The fact that despite torture in a PT police station being proved and accepted by the courts - Leonor Cipriano is still in prison and has actually had her sentence increased for not be able to identify her torturers - has left me completely bewildered about their judicial system.
I do also wonder - as this case is known about worldwide, whether that will have an effect on the judgement. Will national pride come into it? Will making PT look as good as possible be on the agenda? Will public opinion have a bearing on the verdict? The latter did seem to me to be a major reason why LC was convicted. Will the re-opening of the case in PT and the McCanns being ruled out as suspects be a consideration? I have no idea.
IMO anyone who has read the files and the book - can see for themselves that the book is libellous, but quantifying the damage to the McCanns and their family because of it may not be possible to establish with sufficient accuracy to satisfy a court.
Personally I would be happy with an acknowledgement that the book is libellous, even with little or no damages being awarded. I think the McCanns would be too - as IMO their only reason for asking for compensation was because they do not want Amaral to profit on the back of their missing little girl. I would feel exactly the same.
-
I'm not at all confident that the McCanns will win their case. If the case was being conducted under UK law - then I think the McCanns would have won hands down and rightly so - but I gave up trying to understand PT law long ago.
The fact that despite torture in a PT police station being proved and accepted by the courts - Leonor Cipriano is still in prison and has actually had her sentence increased for not be able to identify her torturers - has left me completely bewildered about their judicial system.
I do also wonder - as this case is known about worldwide, whether that will have an effect on the judgement. Will national pride come into it? Will making PT look as good as possible be on the agenda? Will public opinion have a bearing on the verdict? The latter did seem to me to be a major reason why LC was convicted. Will the re-opening of the case in PT and the McCanns being ruled out as suspects be a consideration? I have no idea.
IMO anyone who has read the files and the book - can see for themselves that the book is libellous, but quantifying the damage to the McCanns and their family because of it may not be possible to establish with sufficient accuracy to satisfy a court.
Personally I would be happy with an acknowledgement that the book is libellous, even with little or no damages being awarded. I think the McCanns would be too - as IMO their only reason for asking for compensation was because they do not want Amaral to profit on the back of their missing little girl. I would feel exactly the same.
So you don't believe it was because of the damage being done to the search ?
-
I'm not swerving anything, I'm giving my opinion (admittedly from a position of ignorance as I am neither Susan Hubbard, nor the McCanns). why do you have to be so binary about things? "Who was lying - Kate or Susan?" Well, neither in my opinion. And that's because what was being expressed WAS opinions, which differ from person to person and over time and in retrospect. If you don't understand that, well, What more can I say.
Hang on a minute.
The McCann's called these people to testify on their behalf and to provide their evidence as to the state of their mind. I think it was Funnyman that described them as the people who knew them best, or words to that effect.
If these witnesses have stated to the court that the McCann's weren't bothered, were expecting to be made Arguido's or weren't preoccupied by the Arguido status BUT kate said in her book that they considered fleeing the border then clearly they don't know them that well do they?
Or they do know them well and didn't tell the truth to the Court.
Either way it calls in to question their reliability and their opinions. After all if their assessments of Kate & Gerry's state of mind was so far off the mark and in such stark contrast to what Kate wrote in her book, then shouldn't the court presume that the rest of their testimony was as equally unreliable?
Why should the court believe any of their other claims?
I find it a bit odd that several of their witnesses stated the Arguido status didn't bother them but not one of them said anything which matched Kate's description in her book.
Don't you?
If i was of a suspicious mind I'd wonder if there was a coached "narrative" here.
-
so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements..... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Probably about as much notice as they'll take of Pike's, McBride's and Hubbard's.
-
2) Defence lawyers.
a) TVI lawyers' questions
TVI - You said that "everybody in Portugal believes the book". What makes you think this?
SH - says that in PDL some people believe Kate and Gerald, but outside they don't.
TVI - Do you suppose so? Have you any objective basis to think so?
SH - says she has knows a Portuguese nurse, in the hospital where she works in Canada, who believes what the book says.
TVI - Do you know if this book and the documentary were broadcast at the same moment?
SH - says when one and the other were launched.
TVI - Are the thesis identical?
SH - notes that in the documentary the actors representing Kate and Gerald were depicted drinking a lot, but the underlying theories are similar. She adds one must pay for the book whereas the access to the documentary is free.
TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
The judge overrules : the issue is "what kind of effect?"
b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions
VC - You don't know if Madeleine died. Your conviction is she's alive. The idea that something happened to her other than abduction is also a possibility. Do you think the McCanns are angry because such a theory exists that is different from theirs?
SH - hesitates, then says she doesn't think so, refers to the loss of hope.
VC – Have you seen the TVI documentary, have you read the final conclusion?
The judge overrules.
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP - first asks if Susan Hubbard knows Gonçalo Amaral and when she met the McCanns for the first time.
SH - answers she once saw Gonçalo Amaral somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).
GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
GP - We could then expect the same reaction after the book was published. You, as a close friend who saw them almost every day, must know better than anyone. How did they react when they were made arguidos?
SH - answers they wanted to protect the twins and didn't know what to do. They thought of taking them to Spain. They reacted with sadness (Gerry McCann with anger) because the police wouldn't be looking for their daughter.
GP - Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine?
SH - answers yes.
GP - And after the book was published?
SH - answers yes.
Interesting or in light of the top highlighted bit should one say priceless?
Then again maybe it was those pesky translators.
-
So you don't believe it was because of the damage being done to the search ?
Surely it goes without saying that Amaral's claims in his book would be damaging to the search for her - as common sense dictates there would be no point in continuing to believe that she could be found alive by those people who - purely as a result of reading his book - became convinced that she was dead. But how you could accurately quantify the amount of damage done in that way - I simply do not know.
-
Kate's book
[Devastatingly, by the autumn, everything had flipped again. On 19 October 2010 we were hit from a bolt from the blue. Clarence was told by a Sun reporter that yet another decision from the appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban on sale of Amaral's book and DVD (decision 5). We hadn't been aware that another judgment was about to be made and neither was our lawyer. The broadside just came from nowhere. How many appeals was Amaral going to be allowed? How could other judges come along and overturn a decision made by 3 courts before them?
(There's more)
Then here's the nub:
In a 6th decision in 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected.
Page 426 (paperback)
Kate McCann.
Counting was never my strong point will some kind person enumerate the 6 decisions.
I can only account for 4.
Temporary injunction based on Drs McCann's submission (Court of First Instance)
Court upholds injunction after Dr Amarals submission (Court of First Instance)
Dr Amaral appeals against judgement; appeal upheld (Court of Appeal)
Drs McCann appeal against ruling by Court of Appeal; appeal denied (Supreme Court)
What have I missed in which court and which dates?
-
Surely it goes without saying that Amaral's claims in his book would be damaging to the search for her - as common sense dictates there would be no point in continuing to believe that she could be found alive by those people who - purely as a result of reading his book - became convinced that she was dead. But how you could accurately quantify the amount of damage done in that way - I simply do not know.
Trouble is, the search didn't stop, did it ?
and no matter what you would like people to believe, you can't make them believe in an abduction.
-
Surely it goes without saying that Amaral's claims in his book would be damaging to the search for her - as common sense dictates there would be no point in continuing to believe that she could be found alive by those people who - purely as a result of reading his book - became convinced that she was dead. But how you could accurately quantify the amount of damage done in that way - I simply do not know.
Good post.
But in response to the part I underline, I would say damage could be quantified by the amount Amaral made from selling his book and video, and from giving interviews.
-
Good post.
But in response to the part I underline, I would say damage could be quantified by the amount Amaral made from selling his book and video, and from giving interviews.
So what will you do ferryman when the judge says the mccanns haven't proven their case for 'compensation' ?
-
How can this trial be just about damages? If so then surely that is acknowledgement that damaged has been suffered!
How do you figure that out?
The court case surely is to determine whether the writ claiming damages can be upheld at law ?
-
Probably about as much notice as they'll take of Pike's, McBride's and Hubbard's.
I think you actually believe it
-
Good post.
But in response to the part I underline, I would say damage could be quantified by the amount Amaral made from selling his book and video, and from giving interviews.
Mad...
-
You don't even realise that this is a damages trial!
In which case you mean the case has been settled in favour of the McCanns and all that now remains is to settle the amount of damages due to them.
Well well well. ?{)(**
-
Hang on a minute.
The McCann's called these people to testify on their behalf and to provide their evidence as to the state of their mind. I think it was Funnyman that described them as the people who knew them best, or words to that effect.
If these witnesses have stated to the court that the McCann's weren't bothered, were expecting to be made Arguido's or weren't preoccupied by the Arguido status BUT kate said in her book that they considered fleeing the border then clearly they don't know them that well do they?
Or they do know them well and didn't tell the truth to the Court.
Either way it calls in to question their reliability and their opinions. After all if their assessments of Kate & Gerry's state of mind was so far off the mark and in such stark contrast to what Kate wrote in her book, then shouldn't the court presume that the rest of their testimony was as equally unreliable?
Why should the court believe any of their other claims?
I find it a bit odd that several of their witnesses stated the Arguido status didn't bother them but not one of them said anything which matched Kate's description in her book.
Don't you?
If i was of a suspicious mind I'd wonder if there was a coached "narrative" here.
LOL @ "if I was of a suspicious mind"! Surely, if there was a "coached narrative" they'd ALL be singing from the same hymn sheet? Can there really be any doubt whatsoever that Amaral's book hurt the McCanns badly? Or do you think it didn't and they are pursuing Amaral purely for the cash? Is that what you REALLY believe?
-
In which case you mean the case has been settled in favour of the McCanns and all that now remains is to settle the amount of damages due to them.
Well well well. ?{)(**
AND THE TRIAL WILL GO ON, AND ON, AND ON....................
-
Surely it goes without saying that Amaral's claims in his book would be damaging to the search for her - as common sense dictates there would be no point in continuing to believe that she could be found alive by those people who - purely as a result of reading his book - became convinced that she was dead. But how you could accurately quantify the amount of damage done in that way - I simply do not know.
It's eminently quantifiable. In Portugal the book sales are a statement of fact. But over there we have the appeals judge stating that the book does not impinge on the McCann's rights and is a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.
So the McCann's brought people to stand up in court for them to quantify the impact in the Uk. Now McBride provided no numbers but he could have done so had he wished.
He could have looked at the number of stories published online and counted whether there was an increase in published stories in the Uk after the book came out.
He didn't produce those figures.
Care to guess why?
-
In which case you mean the case has been settled in favour of the McCanns and all that now remains is to settle the amount of damages due to them.
Well well well. ?{)(**
Could a carefully-honed PR image not be claimed to be damaged even if what was said was not libel ? - ie something might be true but still damaging to an image.
-
Could a carefully-honed PR image not be claimed to be damaged even if what was said was not libel ? - ie something might be true but still damaging to an image.
What was written in Amaral's book that has been proven to be true which damaged the McCanns?
-
Good post.
But in response to the part I underline, I would say damage could be quantified by the amount Amaral made from selling his book and video, and from giving interviews.
Yes I do take your point on that Ferryman. I agree it would be an indication, but we don't know how many of the people who read his book and watched his interviews actually believed him and how many people didn't. IMO far more people did believe him than didn't - but how can you prove it?
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but for reasons previously stated - I'm simply not confident enough in the PT judicial system to be sure that the McCanns will get justice and win their case.
Whatever the outcome - I hope they will draw a line under it rather than be dragged into years of appeals etc.
The case has been re-opened by the Portuguese police and they are not suspects - and to me - that is far more important than Amaral's book - which IMO has been thoroughly negated by those facts.
-
It's eminently quantifiable. In Portugal the book sales are a statement of fact. But over there we have the appeals judge stating that the book does not impinge on the McCann's rights and is a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.
So the McCann's brought people to stand up in court for them to quantify the impact in the Uk. Now McBride provided no numbers but he could have done so had he wished.
He could have looked at the number of stories published online and counted whether there was an increase in published stories in the Uk after the book came out.
He didn't produce those figures.
Care to guess why?
My guess, for some considerable time now, is that it was never in "the script" that the case should reach court and the plaintiffs side were ill prepared for what happened. Well assuming the litany of duff responses from the key witnesses was not intended.
Cite? This forums own court reports.
-
LOL @ "if I was of a suspicious mind"! Surely, if there was a "coached narrative" they'd ALL be singing from the same hymn sheet? Can there really be any doubt whatsoever that Amaral's book hurt the McCanns badly? Or do you think it didn't and they are pursuing Amaral purely for the cash? Is that what you REALLY believe?
kate Mccann: Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy.
Michael Wright at the libel trial - says it's very common and normal that the parents are the first suspects. He adds that being arguidos wasn't a preoccupation for the McCanns.
Trish Cameron at the libel trial - says that it was very different. Before, when they were arguidos, they were quite unhappy, but the effect of the book was very different because it offered a conclusion which effectively was demonising and dehumanising her brother and her sister in law.
Alan Pike at the libel trial - says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.
Susan Hubbard at the libel trial - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Angus McBride at the libel trial - says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.
Can't you see a narrative to downplay the impact of being made Arguido and kate's own word?
If you cannot i wonder why not?
-
Yes I do take your point on that Ferryman. I agree it would be an indication, but we don't know how many of the people who read his book and watched his interviews actually believed him and how many people didn't. IMO far more people did believe him than didn't - but how can you prove it?
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but for reasons previously stated - I'm simply not confident enough in the PT judicial system to be sure that the McCanns will get justice and win their case.
Whatever the outcome - I hope they will draw a line under it rather than be dragged into years of appeals etc.
The case has been re-opened by the Portuguese police and they are not suspects - and to me - that is far more important than Amaral's book - which IMO has been thoroughly negated by those facts.
The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.
-
AND THE TRIAL WILL GO ON, AND ON, AND ON....................
I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course.
Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim.
Who are you or I to disagree...........
-
The usual format in the ruling is that the judge presents both sides of the case in terms of the content of the complaint by the plaintiffs and the defence submission. There is an examination of what can be established as proven facts on both sides and an examination of the legal aspects involved. (There may also be an examination of what is admissible or not, if there are doubts about that.)
Are the submissions identical to those in the injunction trial or not?
Even if those are the basis, have other supporting submissions been made for either side or not? If so, there is no way of knowing at this stage which may have been considered admissible or not.
-
kate Mccann:
Michael Wright at the libel trial -
Trish Cameron at the libel trial -
Alan Pike at the libel trial -
Susan Hubbard at the libel trial - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Angus McBride at the libel trial -
Can't you see a narrative to downplay the impact of being made Arguido and kate's own word?
If you cannot i wonder why not?
I have read all the above and every quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, obviously it doesn't to you because you have a heightened sensitivity to any and every tiny discrepancy between statements and see these as evidence of falsehood. Now, how about answering my question. Do you think the book did not cause the McCanns any hurt or damage? Put in their position, would the book have caused you no further hurt or damage beyond that caused by being made an arguido (a situation subsequently dropped owing to a lack of evidence)?
-
In which case you mean the case has been settled in favour of the McCanns and all that now remains is to settle the amount of damages due to them.
Well well well. ?{)(**
Which would follow logically if Santos' plea at the beginning that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive is to be made any sense of at all ...
-
I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course.
Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim.
Who are you or I to disagree...........
I was referring to the almost inevitable appeals.
-
The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.
Again, as it was when Murat won his case against CdaM...
-
My guess, for some considerable time now, is that it was never in "the script" that the case should reach court and the plaintiffs side were ill prepared for what happened. Well assuming the litany of duff responses from the key witnesses was not intended.
Cite? This forums own court reports.
I think it's more likely that they could not show an increase in the number of stories because they had CR on a short leash ready to pounce if anyone dare print stories about the book over in the UK, so there wasn't an increase.
It's hard to convince a court of the damage the book caused when it was released when there was no surge in online news stories (and circulation) about it because the Carter Ruck machine was on standby to smack down any comment on the book.
-
What was written in Amaral's book that has been proven to be true which damaged the McCanns?
I was being hypothetical. It seems to me that very little has been proven to be true or false.
-
I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course.
Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim.
Who are you or I to disagree...........
A libel issue pertaining to Maddie's supposed disappearance can never be determined as long as that disappearance remains unresolved. The McCanns are claiming damages because of Amaral's book regardless of any potential libel.
The question remains, did the book damage the search for Maddie and secondly, did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?
-
I think it's more likely that they could not show an increase in the number of stories because they had CR on a short leash ready to pounce if anyone dare print stories about the book over in the UK, so there wasn't an increase.
It's hard to convince a court of the damage the book caused when it was released when there was no surge in online news stories (and circulation) about it because the Carter Ruck machine was on standby to smack down any comment on the book.
Was there no surge in news stories in Portugal and the rest of Europe when the book was published? Was there no surge in online comment on forums when the book came out?
-
Again, as it was when Murat won his case against CdaM...
I think the key difference between Murat's libel victory (on appeal!) and the McCanns' action is that Murat was, by definition, unable to disprove the allegation against him.
The McCanns have the advantage in their action that they can disprove huge swathes of Amaral's thesis, in book, video and interviews.
-
I was being hypothetical. It seems to me that very little has been proven to be true or false.
If it has not been proven true then it is surely libellous, is it not?
-
I have read all the above and every quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, obviously it doesn't to you because you have a heightened sensitivity to any and every tiny discrepancy between statements and see these as evidence of falsehood. Now, how about answering my question. Do you think the book did not cause the McCanns any hurt or damage? Put in their position, would the book have caused you no further hurt or damage beyond that caused by being made an arguido (a situation subsequently dropped owing to a lack of evidence)?
No you're not getting off the hook so easily as you haven't addressed the issue.
The comments would be fine if they matched what Kate herself said.
These people's statements to the court DO NOT tally with Kate Mccann's own comments in her book about how they were feeling. They are poles apart.
The point is if these people who were closest to them at the time could not accurately know how they were feeling when they were made Arguido, how are we, or indeed the court, supposed to have any faith in the rest of their testimonies as to regards Gerry & Kate's well being?
-
The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.
Yes we know -
Perhaps you could also try to remember that regardless of what the crime was - both the Portuguese police force and SY have ruled the McCanns and their friends OUT as suspects or even persons of interest in this case.
And you don't get more 'key' than that.
-
No you're not getting off the hook so easily as you haven't addressed the issue.
The comments would be fine if they matched what Kate herself said.
These people's statements to the court DO NOT tally with Kate Mccann's own comments in her book about how they were feeling. They are poles apart.
The point is if these people who were closest to them at the time could not accurately know how they were feeling when they were made Arguido, how are we, or indeed the court, supposed to have any faith in the rest of their testimonies as to regards Gerry & Kate's well being?
Your sole argument rests on one line of Kate's book - that the McCanns considered leaving Portugal when they heard that they had been made arguidos. Kate does not mention her fear or shock at being made an arguido - that is YOUR interpretation, by which you are judging their close friends' comments. You're been unreasonable. Why not quote THIS from the book?
"Gerry phoned my mum to explain what was happening, and what was likely to happen, including the probability that we would be made arguidos. Of course she was extremely upset. I know how helpless our parents must have felt at home and how it must have compounded their fears and frustrations.
Strangely, I was feeling OK. I think by now I'd switched on to autopilot and an inner strength and calmness I hadn't expected to find had begun to take over. My instinct to protect my child was more powerful than my fear and I could see very clearly what needed to be done".
Kind of blows your argument apart doesn't it?
-
A libel issue pertaining to Maddie's supposed disappearance can never be determined as long as that disappearance remains unresolved. The McCanns are claiming damages because of Amaral's book regardless of any potential libel.
The question remains, did the book damage the search for Maddie and secondly, did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?
A slight grammatical nit-pick: I would say questions remain.
And I would say, unequivocally yes! (to both questions).
-
I think the key difference between Murat's libel victory (on appeal!) and the McCanns' action is that Murat was, by definition, unable to disprove the allegation against him.
The McCanns have the advantage in their action that they can disprove huge swathes of Amaral's thesis, in book, video and interviews.
No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.
-
I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course.
Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim.
Who are you or I to disagree...........
You worry me sometimes J-P; there appears to be a fundamold in your thinking there.
Hint: what are the full terms of the writ?.
I suspect what you have said above is a logical fallacy.
-
No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.
No they are not. The Met have made that very clear. Are you calling Andy Redwood a liar?
-
Your sole argument rests on one line of Kate's book - that the McCanns considered leaving Portugal when they heard that they had been made arguidos. Kate does not mention her fear or shock at being made an arguido - that is YOUR interpretation, by which you are judging their close friends' comments. You're been unreasonable. Why not quote THIS from the book?
"Gerry phoned my mum to explain what was happening, and what was likely to happen, including the probability that we would be made arguidos. Of course she was extremely upset. I know how helpless our parents must have felt at home and how it must have compounded their fears and frustrations.
Strangely, I was feeling OK. I think by now I'd switched on to autopilot and an inner strength and calmness I hadn't expected to find had begun to take over. My instinct to protect my child was more powerful than my fear and I could see very clearly what needed to be done".
Kind of blows your argument apart doesn't it?
Not at all. What you are describing there is before they were made Arguido: "including the probability that we would be made arguidos".
The comment in Kate's book i used and the questions answered in court was AFTER they were made Arguidos.
At some point their mood must have changed signicantly otherwise they wouldn't be even discussing let alone considering going on the run as fugitives.
And it wasn't just "considering leaving Portugal" was it?
It was about bunking off in the dead of night and making a run to the Spanish border for heaven's sake.
Hardly the actions or thoughts of someone entirely comfortable with being made Arguido is it?
-
Yes we know -
Perhaps you could also try to remember that regardless of what the crime was - both the Portuguese police force and SY have ruled the McCanns and their friends OUT as suspects or even persons of interest in this case.
And you don't get more 'key' than that.
Where has it been proved an abduction took place ?
P.S. A belief in one is not evidence, let alone proof.
The crime as it stands is unresolved.
Perhaps, if people like you, didn't continuously spout on about abduction, I wouldn't have to keep reminding you as to the current state of the crime.
-
No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.
No they aren't.
-
Not at all. What you are describing there is before they were made Arguido: "including the probability that we would be made arguidos".
The comment in Kate's book i used and the questions answered in court was AFTER they were made Arguidos.
At some point their mood must have changed signicantly otherwise they wouldn't be even discussing let alone considering going on the run as fugitives.
And it wasn't just "considering leaving Portugal" was it?
It was about bunking off in the dead of night and making a run to the Spanish border for heaven's sake.
Hardly the actions or thoughts of someone entirely comfortable with being made Arguido is it?
This is a very tiresome argument. I have given evidence from Kate's book that supports the view that Kate was not afraid of being an arguido. If they had then gone on the run (as you describe it) then maybe you might have a point, but a fleeting moment of despair in which they consider such an action doesn't necessarily override EVERY other feeling or emotion they had about being made arguidos. They did not run away from their interrogators, they ran the barrage of the media onslaught outside the police station (and managed not to hit any cameramen in the process), they remained calm and dignified and defiantly courageous throughout the process, and left the station with their heads held high - not the actions of the fearful and tremulous. Now, I have answered your questions repeatedly, are you ever going to address mine?
-
No they are not. The Met have made that very clear. Are you calling Andy Redwood a liar?
The Met? Most of Portugal and half the population of the UK regard their conduct as suspicious or maybe you haven't noticed and that includes many senior detectives and other professionals. In any event, nobody outside OG knows exactly what Redwood's views are on the case, what he utters publicly has probably little in common with the truth.
-
No they aren't.
Yes they are or we wouldn't be here today debating it.
-
This is a very tiresome argument. I have given evidence from Kate's book that supports the view that Kate was not afraid of being an arguido. If they had then gone on the run (as you describe it) then maybe you might have a point, but a fleeting moment of despair in which they consider such an action doesn't necessarily override EVERY other feeling or emotion they had about being made arguidos. They did not run away from their interrogators, they ran the barrage of the media onslaught outside the police station (and managed not to hit any cameramen in the process), they remained calm and dignified and defiantly courageous throughout the process, and left the station with their heads held high - not the actions of the fearful and tremulous. Now, I have answered your questions repeatedly, are you ever going to address mine?
Kates biggest fear was what her parents and friends would say when they heard the news. When is she going to answer those questions? Notable that all the witnesses recently interviewed in Faro had no such fear. What does that say for a parent whose child had supposedly disappeared yet refused to cooperate with police?
-
I find several points intriguing.
Amaral's case seems to be that he - and everyone else - had come to the same conclusion based on what was known (or otherwise understood to be the case) during his tenure.
- The judge has been trying to ascertain whether the contents of the book / documentary are faithfull to the files, but the defence witnesses beat about the bush (they either haven't read it, watched it, or they simply read and agreed with the overall conclusion). Seriously?
Some of it is, some of it is based on a garbled understanding (at best) and some of it doesn't appear in the files at all.
Who is responsible for ascertaining what is and what isn't? Is the onus on what witnesses state in court? Is background evidence of "misunderstandings" or hearsay that doesn't appear in the files allowed? Would evidence that aspects of the allegations may or may not be accurate be allowed during a live investigation (which is NOW the case, although it wasn't at the time)?
-
The Met? Most of Portugal and half the population of the UK regard their conduct as suspicious or maybe you haven't noticed and that includes many senior detectives and other professionals. In any event, nobody outside OG knows exactly what Redwood's views are on the case, what he utters publicly has probably little in common with the truth.
Can you please provide evidence that half the population of the UK regards the McCanns as suspects please. Frankly, I don't really give a toss what ill-informed individuals think regarding the McCanns guilt or innocence - as far as those who DO have all the information at the disposal the McCanns are not suspects, and have stated so publicly. why you so desperately need to believe that Redwood is deceiving us is your problem, not mine.
-
I note nobody can answer the questions, did the book damage the search for Maddie and did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?
-
Can you please provide evidence that half the population of the UK regards the McCanns as suspects please. Frankly, I don't really give a toss what ill-informed individuals think regarding the McCanns guilt or innocence - as far as those who DO have all the information at the disposal the McCanns are not suspects, and have stated so publicly. why you so desperately need to believe that Redwood is deceiving us is your problem, not mine.
He's a cop! QED
-
Where has it been proved an abduction took place ?
P.S. A belief in one is not evidence, let alone proof.
The crime as it stands is unresolved.
Perhaps, if people like you, didn't continuously spout on about abduction, I wouldn't have to keep reminding you as to the current state of the crime.
People like me have decided that the PJ and SY have the necessary expertise to know more about the facts of this case than you do Stephen. Hence their decision to rule out the McCanns and their friends as suspects - which means they believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger(s).
-
I have located the passage in the book that Albertini is using to make his or her point regarding the McCanns fear of being arguidos and it is nothing of the sort. Here is the passage:
"the prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the boarder to Spain. It would have been crazy" - note no mention of a "midnight flit" for starters, and secondly and much more importantly it is very clear that it is a fear of being charged and thrown into prison that Kate is describing, not a fear of being made arguidos. Albertini, you have been misleading us, shame on you! And also, not the immediate caveat from Kate that doing such a thing would have been a crazy thing to do. Sorry. No leg left to stand on Albertini. Off out for lunch now.
-
People like me have decided that the PJ and SY have the necessary expertise to know more about the facts of this case than you do Stephen. Hence their decision to rule out the McCanns and their friends as suspects - which means they believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger(s). Try to get over it.
The people who count and whose jurisdiction the case falls have not cleared anyone.
-
People like me have decided that the PJ and SY have the necessary expertise to know more about the facts of this case than you do Stephen. Hence their decision to rule out the McCanns and their friends as suspects - which means they believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger(s).
A belief is all they have benice.
NO FACTS, or the case would have been solved.
-
He's a cop! QED
Did I misunderstand that comment, or do you really, have a problem with Law enforcers in general?
-
I have located the passage in the book that Albertini is using to make his or her point regarding the McCanns fear of being arguidos and it is nothing of the sort. Here is the passage:
"the prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the boarder to Spain. It would have been crazy" - note no mention of a "midnight flit" for starters, and secondly and much more importantly it is very clear that it is a fear of being charged and thrown into prison that Kate is describing, not a fear of being made arguidos. Albertini, you have been misleading us, shame on you! And also, not the immediate caveat from Kate that doing such a thing would have been a crazy thing to do. Sorry. No leg left to stand on Albertini. Off out for lunch now.
Answer this then smarty, why was Gerry contemplating doing a runner the night before they were to be interviewed as arguidos? Was it because he feared being thrown in the jug?
-
The people who count and whose jurisdiction the case falls have not cleared anyone.
So you think that the findings/conclusions of the Portguese police force and the UK police force don't count? What was the point of them re-opening the case then?
-
This is a very tiresome argument.
I have given evidence from Kate's book that supports the view that Kate was not afraid of being an arguido.
You have given evidence from the book about Kate not being afraid BEFORE they were made Arguidos.
The questions put in Court and the running for the hills from the book centred on how they felt AFTER they were made Arguidos.
Please note and understand the fundamental and important difference.
If they had then gone on the run (as you describe it) then maybe you might have a point, but a fleeting moment of despair in which they consider such an action doesn't necessarily override EVERY other feeling or emotion they had about being made arguidos.
What would you describe "sneaking us into a car and driving over the border" as if not going on the run? One thing it is not, is the " they thought about leaving Portugal" in the casual manner you tried to suggest.
They did not run away from their interrogators, they ran the barrage of the media onslaught outside the police station (and managed not to hit any cameramen in the process), they remained calm and dignified and defiantly courageous throughout the process, and left the station with their heads held high - not the actions of the fearful and tremulous. Now, I have answered your questions repeatedly, are you ever going to address mine?
All jolly lovely but not one thing whatsoever to do with the point at hand.
The point at hand is that their own libel trial witnesses stated that AFTER they were made Arguidos they were not bothered about it.
However Kate's comment was directly at odds with those statements in court rendering the witnesses either as not knowing the state of the couple's well being (and being useless in terms of evidentiary value) or they were not telling the truth to the court and attempting to donwplay the impact of being made Arguidos.
-
So you think that the findings/conclusions of the Portguese police force and the UK police force don't count? What was the point of them re-opening the case then?
I was referring to the Portuguese police and ministry of justice. They haven't cleared anyone yet.
-
A different issue.
An analogy.
Someone postulates a theory that all flowering plants are green. At the time of this postulation, flowering plants weren't in bloom, but the premise was that - as the leaves were green - the flowers would also be green.
Is this an honestly held belief? Should spring / summer have shown that not all flowers are green? Should this view have been corrected?
Some may find that to be an honestly-held assumption at the time ... unless you're claiming to be a horticulturist.
-
A different issue.
An analogy.
Someone postulates a theory that all flowering plants are green. At the time of this postulation, flowering plants weren't in bloom, but the premise was that - as the leaves were green - the flowers would also be green.
Is this an honestly held belief? Should spring / summer have shown that not all flowers are green? Should this view have been corrected?
Some may find that to be an honestly-held assumption at the time ... unless you're claiming to be a horticulturist.
However, all leaves aren't 'green'.
-
A belief is all they have benice.
NO FACTS, or the case would have been solved
Their beliefs are based on the facts and info they have to hand - which are far in excess of what we have. How else to you think they arrived at the conclusion that the McCanns and their friends were not implicated in Madeleine's disappearance?
Do you think they just said 'Did you do it?'.... and the McCanns said 'No'.... and SY and the PJ then said 'OK then we believe you'
.
-
Their beliefs are based on the facts and info they have to hand - which are far in excess of what we have. How else to you think they arrived at the conclusion that the McCanns and their friends were not implicated in Madeleine's disappearance?
Do you think they just said 'Did you do it?'.... and the McCanns said 'No'.... and SY and the PJ then said 'OK then we believe you'
I've that in abundance.
SY or the PJ haven't questioned the McCann's, otherwise they would have stated that.
Your absurd belief in abduction, is merely a defensive mechanism, since without that, all eyes point in one direction.
-
A different issue.
An analogy.
Someone postulates a theory that all flowering plants are green. At the time of this postulation, flowering plants weren't in bloom, but the premise was that - as the leaves were green - the flowers would also be green.
Is this an honestly held belief? Should spring / summer have shown that not all flowers are green? Should this view have been corrected?
Some may find that to be an honestly-held assumption at the time ... unless you're claiming to be a horticulturist.
A relevant analogy too, Carana.
If only we could see through the eyes of others and their perception of the situation as they see it.
The McCanns rarely displayed their inner feelings in public, so how could anyone except themselves, know what they were thinking when informed of their Arquido Status and the period following.
-
A relevant analogy too, Carana.
If only we could see through the eyes of others and their perception of the situation as they see it.
The McCanns rarely displayed their inner feelings in public, so how could anyone except themselves, know what they were thinking when informed of their Arquido Status and the period following.
Its in their book Anna or do you think they lied again??
-
Its in their book Anna or do you think they lied again??
To be honest, Angelo, I haven't read the book or Amarals because I prefer not be influenced by anything other than the files.
I have read snippets on here and checked some information for research, but not totally read.
Does it tell us in the book, what if any of their inner feelings were shown outwardly? Or was it only referring to their feelings?
-
I have located the passage in the book that Albertini is using to make his or her point regarding the McCanns fear of being arguidos and it is nothing of the sort. Here is the passage:
"the prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the boarder to Spain. It would have been crazy" - note no mention of a "midnight flit" for starters, and secondly and much more importantly it is very clear that it is a fear of being charged and thrown into prison that Kate is describing, not a fear of being made arguidos. Albertini, you have been misleading us, shame on you! And also, not the immediate caveat from Kate that doing such a thing would have been a crazy thing to do. Sorry. No leg left to stand on Albertini. Off out for lunch now.
The passage relates to Friday the 7th September 2007 AFTER they were made Arguidos.
You specialise in obfuscation I've noticed. However it really won't wash.
The questions in court related to how they felt after they were made arguidos.
After they were made Arguidos, according to kate's book, they believed they could go to prison and were worried about not seeing their remaining children. Gerry then was thinking about "sneeking" the family over the border.
So that is how they felt after they were made Arguidos, which is what the witnesses in court were asked and which not one of them said anything remotely matching this, did they?
-
If it has not been proven true then it is surely libellous, is it not?
Only if a court so decides.
-
The passage relates to Friday the 7th September 2007 AFTER they were made Arguidos.
You specialise in obfuscation I've noticed. However it really won't wash.
The questions in court related to how they felt after they were made arguidos.
After they were made Arguidos, according to kate's book, they believed they could go to prison and were worried about not seeing their remaining children. Gerry then was thinking about "sneeking" the family over the border.
So that is how they felt after they were made Arguidos, which is what the witnesses in court were asked and which not one of them said anything remotely matching this, did they?
Not much point in you trying to convince us that the mccanns don't have a case when its blatantly obvious they do..........you are just going to make your humble pie even more difficult to eat
-
No they are not. The Met have made that very clear. Are you calling Andy Redwood a liar?
Police lie all the time to the press and the public. Do you honestly believe that they would say, we suspect so and so while they are still gathering evidence? They are not obliged to give a full running commentary of their investigation to the public.
When Peaches Geldof died, the police said to the press that no drug paraphernalia was found in the house. During the inquest, it came out that the police did find drugs and needles when they arrived. Therefore, they lied to the public and the press.
-
I note nobody can answer the questions, did the book damage the search for Maddie and did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?
the answer to all is an obvious yes
-
Police lie all the time to the press and the public. Do you honestly believe that they would say, we suspect so and so while they are still gathering evidence? They are not obliged to give a full running commentary of their investigation to the public.
When Peaches Geldof died, the police said to the press that no drug paraphernalia was found in the house. During the inquest, it came out that the police did find drugs and needles when they arrived. Therefore, they lied to the public and the press.
SY are not spending millions investigating in Portugal because they suspect the parents...how ridiculous
-
Police lie all the time to the press and the public. Do you honestly believe that they would say, we suspect so and so while they are still gathering evidence? They are not obliged to give a full running commentary of their investigation to the public.
When Peaches Geldof died, the police said to the press that no drug paraphernalia was found in the house. During the inquest, it came out that the police did find drugs and needles when they arrived. Therefore, they lied to the public and the press.
having accused the police of lying...what evidence do you have to support this in the Geldof case
-
having accused the police of lying...what evidence do you have to support this in the Geldof case
Read my comment, you might understand!
-
SY are not spending millions investigating in Portugal because they suspect the parents...how ridiculous
If my comments are so pathetic, no need to read or answer them.
BTW, how do you know if they aren't investigating in other countries or in the UK?
-
having accused the police of lying...what evidence do you have to support this in the Geldof case
Take the rose tinted spectacles off Davey. The police lie through their teeth when it suits them.
-
To be honest, Angelo, I haven't read the book or Amarals because I prefer not be influenced by anything other than the files.
I have read snippets on here and checked some information for research, but not totally read.
Does it tell us in the book, what if any of their inner feelings were shown outwardly? Or was it only referring to their feelings?
It has been a while since I read her book but there were moments very early on when the mask was not evident, the wailing in front of the GNR comes to mind.
-
You have given evidence from the book about Kate not being afraid BEFORE they were made Arguidos.
The questions put in Court and the running for the hills from the book centred on how they felt AFTER they were made Arguidos.
Please note and understand the fundamental and important difference.
What would you describe "sneaking us into a car and driving over the border" as if not going on the run? One thing it is not, is the " they thought about leaving Portugal" in the casual manner you tried to suggest.
All jolly lovely but not one thing whatsoever to do with the point at hand.
The point at hand is that their own libel trial witnesses stated that AFTER they were made Arguidos they were not bothered about it.
However Kate's comment was directly at odds with those statements in court rendering the witnesses either as not knowing the state of the couple's well being (and being useless in terms of evidentiary value) or they were not telling the truth to the court and attempting to donwplay the impact of being made Arguidos.
Let's have a quote from you then that explicitly states the McCanns were not bothered about being made arguidos AFTER the event then, if that is indeed the hair-splitting point at hand. Nothing you have so far quoted explicitly states that as far as I can see.
-
The passage relates to Friday the 7th September 2007 AFTER they were made Arguidos.
You specialise in obfuscation I've noticed. However it really won't wash.
The questions in court related to how they felt after they were made arguidos.
After they were made Arguidos, according to kate's book, they believed they could go to prison and were worried about not seeing their remaining children. Gerry then was thinking about "sneeking" the family over the border.
So that is how they felt after they were made Arguidos, which is what the witnesses in court were asked and which not one of them said anything remotely matching this, did they?
Totally missing the point. It was not the status of arguido that filled them with fear, but the prospect of being separated from their kids and banged up in a foreign jail. Please don't pretend you can't tell the difference FGS!
-
Let's have a quote from you then that explicitly states the McCanns were not bothered about being made arguidos AFTER the event then, if that is indeed the hair-splitting point at hand. Nothing you have so far quoted explicitly states that as far as I can see.
You conceding defeat then Alfie? 8)-)))
You can't do what you have attempted to do and seperate the various events. It was the fear of being designated arguido which came first and gave effect to the other fears.
-
Its in their book Anna or do you think they lied again??
It is a strange thing to call someone a liar on the basis of a statement made by someone else ... is that the accusation being made ... or have I misunderstood the discussion?
-
Let me see if I have this straight.
The case in Portugal was archived largely due to lack of evidence that would lead to a conclusion.
Dr Amaral's book was published after the case was archived.
Therefore the only "search" being carried out, after publication of Dr Amaral's book, which could be damaged was likely to be the private search carried out by agents of Drs McCann or "The Fund". There being no other "official" search.
So the only search that could be damaged or impeded was the one being carried out by McCann agents.
We know this search was not impeded because at least one witness testified so during the current trial (see this forum and thread).
Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.... 8(>((
-
If it has not been proven true then it is surely libellous, is it not?
Erm... in UK law, yes, but this is not necessarily the case in Portuguese law.
I haven't found many civil defamation cases in Portugal (although perhaps I simply haven't found them).
Many seem to be of the private penal variety (including an investigation into one against a journalist describing a former high official in the PT government as a "clown").
In Portugal, being described as a clown is defamatory (in the penal code) if the person in question is, or was, a professional of repute.
On the other hand, being accused of criminal acts in a civil case doesn't appear to be that clear-cut.
-
You conceding defeat then Alfie? 8)-)))
You can't do what you have attempted to do and seperate the various events. It was the fear of being designated arguido which came first and gave effect to the other fears.
No - as I have already quoted from the book Kate was quite calm and unfearful when the prospect of arguido loomed. The fear they felt afterwards was, as also explained by Kate the fear of being locked up. When one is made arguido it doesn't automatically follow that this is the only conclusion, howver the McCanns were seriously worried that the police were moving towards pressing charges - hence their understandable fear.
-
It is a strange thing to call someone a liar on the basis of a statement made by someone else ... is that the accusation being made ... or have I misunderstood the discussion?
They are on record stating that they lied when the need arises. But don't we all? 8(8-))
-
Erm... in UK law, yes, but this is not necessarily the case in Portuguese law.
I haven't found many civil defamation cases in Portugal (although perhaps I simply haven't found them).
Many seem to be of the private penal variety (including an investigation into one against a journalist describing a former high official in the PT government as a "clown").
In Portugal, being described as a clown is defamatory (in the penal code) if the person in question is, or was, a professional of repute.
On the other hand, being accused of criminal acts in a civil case doesn't appear to be that clear-cut.
I'm pretty sure Isabel would not have recommended a civil action if she felt the nature of the allegations would be a bar to success.
-
I'm pretty sure Isabel would not have recommended a civil action if she felt the nature of the allegations would be a bar to success.
Why? She will get paid regardless of the outcome and the longer it goes on the more dosh... 8(0(*
-
Totally missing the point. It was not the status of arguido that filled them with fear, but the prospect of being separated from their kids and banged up in a foreign jail. Please don't pretend you can't tell the difference FGS!
I'm pretty sure the prospect of being made argudo would fill me with fear, particularly if I knew I was innocent ...
-
And there it is again - another goading comment.
Sorry Alfredo...off to lunch.
-
Why? She will get paid regardless of the outcome and the longer it goes on the more dosh... 8(0(*
Isabel is a reputable lawyer
-
I'm pretty sure the prospect of being made argudo would fill me with fear, particularly if I knew I was innocent ...
or guilty!!!
-
Isabel is a reputable law.
If you say so, I know you are always correct. But then I remembered the day she attacked Anne Guedes outside the court. So unprofessional. And as for Afonso and his twitter threats...
-
I'm pretty sure the prospect of being made argudo would fill me with fear, particularly if I knew I was innocent ...
Innocent of what ?
The crime has yet to be established.
-
or guilty!!!
On all the balance of evidence the first seems pretty clear-cut.
Almost always ...
-
On all the balance of evidence the first seems pretty clear-cut.
Almost always ...
Disagree.
-
I'm pretty sure Isabel would not have recommended a civil action if she felt the nature of the allegations would be a bar to success.
I still haven't worked out whether a penal suit was a possibility or not.
-
They are on record stating that they lied when the need arises. But don't we all? 8(8-))
Then I think it is a bit rich to accuse someone of being a liar on the basis of a third party making a statement about how they may have felt in a given situation ... in fact I am not sure if it is even evidential ... who knows what anyone feels?
I wish that those who continually accuse the Drs McCann of lying would take a step back, consider the context and bear in mind that neither has a criminal conviction for perjury.
-
Let's have a quote from you then that explicitly states the McCanns were not bothered about being made arguidos AFTER the event then, if that is indeed the hair-splitting point at hand. Nothing you have so far quoted explicitly states that as far as I can see.
- The Judge asks can you explain why the arguido status didn't provoke many e-mails.
Libel trial witness for the Mccann's Michael Wright: It's very common and normal that the parents are the first suspects. He adds that being arguidos wasn't a preoccupation for the McCanns
Libel trial witness for the Mccann's Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
-
Totally missing the point. It was not the status of arguido that filled them with fear, but the prospect of being separated from their kids and banged up in a foreign jail. Please don't pretend you can't tell the difference FGS!
No it is you missing the point.
Being given the status of Arguido made them think they would/could go to prison and be seperated from their kids and banged up in a foreign jail.
It was the act of making them Arguido which led to those thoughts, these then were their feelings after they were made Arguido.
But in the context of this discussion not one of their witnesses apparently noticed this fear of being separated from their kids or being banged up in a foreign jail.
And aren't these people supposed to know them, and testified as such in a court?
-
Your first quote says that the status of arguido wasn't a preoccupation of the McCanns - what evidence do you have that it was a preoccupation of theirs? Does preoccupation = fear in your view?
Your second quote explicitly states that they did not fear the arguido status - you have been unable to provide any quote from the McCanns saying that they were afraid of being arguidos.
Try again.
-
No it is you missing the point.
Being given the status of Arguido made them think they would/could go to prison and be seperated from their kids and banged up in a foreign jail.
It was the act of making them Arguido which led to those thoughts, these then were their feelings after they were made Arguido.
But in the context of this discussion not one of their witnesses apparently noticed this fear of being separated from their kids or being banged up in a foreign jail.
And aren't these people supposed to know them, and testified as such in a court?
No, the belief Gerry and his solicitor had that they were about to be charged, possibly with murder, is what scared them, not the status of arguido itself.
-
No, the belief Gerry and his solicitor had that they were about to be charged, possibly with murder, is what scared them, not the status of arguido itself.
But they were Arguidos at that point weren't they?
-
No, the belief Gerry and his solicitor had that they were about to be charged, possibly with murder, is what scared them, not the status of arguido itself.
Why should they have been afraid of a murder charge ?
The PJ believed they had covered up an accidental death.
-
Erm... in UK law, yes, but this is not necessarily the case in Portuguese law.
I haven't found many civil defamation cases in Portugal (although perhaps I simply haven't found them).
Many seem to be of the private penal variety (including an investigation into one against a journalist describing a former high official in the PT government as a "clown").
In Portugal, being described as a clown is defamatory (in the penal code) if the person in question is, or was, a professional of repute.
On the other hand, being accused of criminal acts in a civil case doesn't appear to be that clear-cut.
This is interesting as they cannot repair the damage........................................................
Portugal Law and practice
Excerpts:-
7.1 Rules relating to damages
The general rule is that the party obliged to compensate for damages must restore the situation to that which would have existed if the event that led to the damage had not occurred (Cf. Article 562 of the CC). Whenever this is not possible, the indemnity should be calculated in terms of monetary value (Cf. Article 566 of the CC).
-
But they were Arguidos at that point weren't they?
Yes they were but it wasn't being arguidos that scared them so much, it was the prospect of being charged and incarcerated for weeks, or months pre-trial with no access to their children or the possibility of properly preparing their defence that scared them. It was their belief that such an eventuality was imminent hence the desire to flee - if it wasn't this imminent threat and was simply the threat of being an arguido that scared them, why did they not entertain thoughts of doing a "midnight flit" days earlier when they strongly suspected they were about to be made arguidos?
-
Why should they have been afraid of a murder charge ?
The PJ believed they had covered up an accidental death.
I don't know about you, but if I had been in a similar situation and had found out about the Cipriano case and what happened to them despite the lack of any plausible evidence, together with a very similar blackwashing, PJ leaking situation, I would have had serious concerns about whether it was wise to stay or to get the hell out with the twins.
-
Yes they were but it wasn't being arguidos that scared them so much, it was the prospect of being charged and incarcerated for weeks, or months pre-trial with no access to their children or the possibility of properly preparing their defence that scared them. It was their belief that such an eventuality was imminent hence the desire to flee - if it wasn't this imminent threat and was simply the threat of being an arguido that scared them, why did they not entertain thoughts of doing a "midnight flit" days earlier when they strongly suspected they were about to be made arguidos?
These thoughts which came about according to Kate's book, after they'd left the police station having been made Arguidos.
So that was the effect of being made Arguidos, wasn't it?
Dear Lord, you pedantry and desperate attempts to twist the situation to try and make it seem its not what it so clearly is, is becoming really tiresome.
-
These thoughts which came about according to Kate's book, after they'd left the police station having been made Arguidos.
So that was the effect of being made Arguidos, wasn't it?
Dear Lord, you pedantry and desperate attempts to twist the situation to try and make it seem its not what it so clearly is, is becoming really tiresome.
Tiresome because you don't understand...
In a similar situation If I thought that the police were investigating me as a matter of routine...simply because I was the parent...I would not be at all worried. However, if I felt the police were investigating because they thought I was guilty...that would be very worrying. Can you really not see the difference
-
How long were the McCanns arguidos? Were they in a state of constant fear for the entire duration does anyone know?
-
I don't know about you, but if I had been in a similar situation and had found out about the Cipriano case and what happened to them despite the lack of any plausible evidence, together with a very similar blackwashing, PJ leaking situation, I would have had serious concerns about whether it was wise to stay or to get the hell out with the twins.
Well bearing in mind money was being given to Correia, to 'help' the Cipriano's, on behalf of the McCann's, it isn't a good parallel to draw, as the McCann's target was to get at Amaral anyway they could
As to 'plausible evidence' that is a matter of opinion.
-
How long were the McCanns arguidos? Were they in a state of constant fear for the entire duration does anyone know?
I don't know do you?
-
I don't know do you?
No but I'm going to speculate that they were quivering wrecks for at least 8 months if that suits you...?
-
I was referring to the Portuguese police and ministry of justice. They haven't cleared anyone yet.
Since the publication of the Final report, the only people I know who have made that claim are sceptics. Everyone else - be it in the newspapers, TV progs, TV news items, etc etc always refer to them as having been cleared. Neither can I remember any official statement in the last 6 years from anyone claiming that the McCanns are still suspects. Can they all be wrong? (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
Since the Final Report - the Portuguese police themselves have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. Do you think that won't count with their Ministry of Justice?
-
Can we get back on topic now, Please
-
Can we get back on topic now, Please
I'm surprised this thread was ever allowed in the first place as its sole purpose appears to be to invite speculation.
-
I'm surprised this thread was ever allowed in the first place as its sole purpose appears to be to invite speculation.
If the speculation involves the libel case....That's OK, Alfred. Otherwise they will be removed.
-
I'm surprised this thread was ever allowed in the first place as its sole purpose appears to be to invite speculation.
By its very nature an invitation to speculate on whats next. 8@??)(
-
By its very nature an invitation to speculate on whats next. 8@??)(
"The rules of this forum are very straightforward. Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links".
-
Meanwhile Anna, what is your view on the probable outcome of the libel trial ?
-
Meanwhile Anna, what is your view on the probable outcome of the libel trial ?
It can go either way and I am not 100% sure that the McCanns will win the case.
-
It can go either way and I am not 100% sure that the McCanns will win the case.
Thank you for the answer.
-
"The rules of this forum are very straightforward. Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links".
And then we have this: quote by none other than the forum rules monitor "No but I'm going to speculate that they were quivering wrecks for at least 8 months if that suits you...?
Tsk.
I am still smiling at the sillyness about the McCanns being 'cleared' they have not stood trial due to lack of evidence (not that there is none!) so thay cannot be cleared of something they have not been charged with.
However, it is well documented and well accepted by many people that they are guilty of the situation they found themselves in, and for the fate of their daughter -whatever that fate is/was.
-
Thank you for the answer.
I think a lot of us feel like that, Stephen. Despite common sense suggesting otherwise.
-
And then we have this: quote by none other than the forum rules monitor "No but I'm going to speculate that they were quivering wrecks for at least 8 months if that suits you...?
Tsk.
I am still smiling at the sillyness about the McCanns being 'cleared' they have not stood trial due to lack of evidence (not that there is none!) so thay cannot be cleared of something they have not been chatged with.
However, it is well documented and well accepted by many people that they are guilty of the situation they found themselves in, and for the fate of their daughter -whatever that fate is/was.
oh dear, you didn't think my post about the quivering wrecks was serious did you?
-
oh dear, you didn't think my post about the quivering wrecks was serious did you?
Random reply.
It looks like the Spambot idea bit the dust Alf...what a shame 8(0(*
-
oh dear, you didn't think my post about the quivering wrecks was serious did you?
No, I don't take anything you say seriously!. I was just pointing out your obvious hypocrisy. I thought you had me on Ignore? Oh Dear...
-
No, I don't take anything you say seriously!. I was just pointing out your obvious hypocrisy. I thought you had me on Ignore? Oh Dear...
Please explain the hypocrisy, bearing in my mind that I was joking about speculating...?
-
Please explain the hypocrisy, bearing in my mind that I was joking about speculating...?
The good thing about all this speculation is that several very vocal posters are going to look pretty silly when the judge awards damages for defamation when they are claiming this is not a libel trial and the mccanns have not shown they have suffered due to amarals book...how will they spin the verdict...that will be very interesting
-
The good thing about all this speculation is that several very vocal posters are going to look pretty silly when the judge awards damages for defamation when they are claiming this is not a libel trial and the mccanns have not shown they have suffered due to amarals book...how will they spin the verdict...that will be very interesting
or of course, you will. 8)--))
-
The good thing about all this speculation is that several very vocal posters are going to look pretty silly when the judge awards damages for defamation when they are claiming this is not a libel trial and the mccanns have not shown they have suffered due to amarals book...how will they spin the verdict...that will be very interesting
ball point figure for 'settlement'?
They do deserve an award.... Entrepreneurs of the decade - New comers to make millions out of nothing! nice little enterprise. Not bad for being neglectful parents eh?
-
ball point figure for 'settlement'?
They do deserve an award.... Entrepreneurs of the decade - New comers to make millions out of nothing! nice little enterprise. Not bad for being neglectful parents eh?
I don't see them as neglectful parents....the rest of your post is full of bitterness which is not a healthy trait
-
I don't see them as neglectful parents....the rest of your post is full of bitterness which is not a healthy trait
You don't see that being left to fend for herself was her parents fault? Well good for you. we disagree on that score.
I suppose you also take the view that 'Maddie has come to no harm' stance. Until Amaral wrote his book then is was> Maddie claiming for compensation for 'injury'?????. Well not Maddie in person JUST THE PARENTS looking after Maddie's interest.
Oh god even typing this gives me the creeps about these two.
-
You don't see that being left to fend for herself was her parents fault? Well good for you. we disagree on that score.
I suppose you also take the view that 'Maddie has come to no harm' stance. Until Amaral wrote his book then is was> Maddie claiming for compensation for 'injury'?????. Well not Maddie in person JUST THE PARENTS looking after Maddie's interest.
Oh god even typing this gives me the creeps about these two.
no...and I don't think anyone does...there is no evidence that Maddie has died...that doesn't mean she isn't.
I think that to be so cruel and nasty to the parents.....posters must have personal issues...just my opinion...Brenda Leyland being a perfect example. Wasn't the inquest today?
-
no...and I don't think anyone does...there is no evidence that Maddie has died...that doesn't mean she isn't.
I think that to be so cruel and nasty to the parents.....posters must have personal issues...just my opinion...Brenda Leyland being a perfect example. Wasn't the inquest today?
Tomorrow dave.
-
no...and I don't think anyone does...there is no evidence that Maddie has died...that doesn't mean she isn't.
I think that to be so cruel and nasty to the parents.....posters must have personal issues...just my opinion...Brenda Leyland being a perfect example. Wasn't the inquest today?
I agree the parents were cruel in bringing this whole situation about. I have no personal issues at all. I am discussing a real case where parents neglected their child and are seeking financial reward as a result of their actions. Or is it nasty to talk about that? Oh dearie me.
-
ball point figure for 'settlement'?
They do deserve an award.... Entrepreneurs of the decade - New comers to make millions out of nothing! nice little enterprise. Not bad for being neglectful parents eh?
A disgraceful post that hasn't been pulled.
Why not?
-
A disgraceful post that hasn't been pulled.
Why not?
Is it untrue? Did they not make millions? are they still not seeking Money? what did they contribute to society to gain such notoriety?
Oh truth hurts. Look at all the people who have suffered from this couple and the most important of all THEIR DAUGHTER!
-
Is it untrue? Did they not make millions? are they still not seeking Money? what did they contribute to society to gain such notoriety?
Oh truth hurts. Look at all the people who have suffered from this couple and the most important of all THEIR DAUGHTER!
Money has been sought to pursue the quest for truth and justice for Madeleine.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised you find that hard to understand.
-
Is it untrue? Did they not make millions? are they still not seeking Money? what did they contribute to society to gain such notoriety?
Oh truth hurts. Look at all the people who have suffered from this couple and the most important of all THEIR DAUGHTER!
No they didn't make millions...they have highlighted the danger children face from abduction...something that was severely underestimated
-
No they didn't make millions...they have highlighted the danger children face from abduction...something that was severely underestimated
Key point: they didn't make millions.
In fact, they didn't make a single penny.
Everything raised was in the quest for truth and justice for Madeleine ...
-
Money has been sought to pursue the quest for truth and justice for Madeleine.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised you find that hard to understand.
That is the candy coloured version. The reality is we know where money has gone. Mortgage payments four star hotels... lawyers..PR.. more lawyers..not for defence but to sue people!!
Suing Amaral to get money for truth and justice is deeply offensive.
-
That is the candy coloured version. The reality is we know where money has gone. Mortgage payments four star hotels... lawyers..PR.. more lawyers..not for defence but to sue people!!
Suing Amaral to get money for truth and justice is deeply offensive.
I will concede one mortgage repayment. (Possibly) paid back later.
Where do you get the rest from?
-
That is the candy coloured version. The reality is we know where money has gone. Mortgage payments four star hotels... lawyers..PR.. more lawyers..not for defence but to sue people!!
Suing Amaral to get money for truth and justice is deeply offensive.
They are not suing amaral for money,,,but for truth and justice
-
They are not suing amaral for money,,,but for truth and justice
OK Why not sue for...let's say €5000.00 ? instead of Million. AND why get your children to sue him? Oh come on .....
-
OK Why not sue for...let's say €5000.00 ? instead of Million. AND why get your children to sue him? Oh come on .....
as I said...Justice..it's very important...amaral should not profit personally from his disgraceful book...the days of diamond earings and jaguars are over
-
Key point: they didn't make millions.
In fact, they didn't make a single penny.
Everything raised was in the quest for truth and justice for Madeleine ...
But it appears it was far easier ( and far more comfortable) to find truth and justice in the rather agreeable surroundings of the dom pedro hotel?
Mindst you they were probably playing it safe by using the fund to pay for stays there rather than risking it in the lawless hinterland, eh?
-
But it appears it was far easier ( and far more comfortable) to find truth and justice in the rather agreeable surroundings of the dom pedro hotel?
Mindst you they were probably playing it safe by using the fund to pay for stays there rather than risking it in the lawless hinterland, eh?
It's a pity the Portuguese police didn't persue justice rather than supporting one of their own who made a personal fortune by libelling the innocent parents...fortunately...via the libel trial ...he's about to lose the lot
-
The only thing I can think of at the moment is, "How much longer is this going to take?"
No change there then six months down the track eh Ellie?
I became a bit bored and flipped through the first dozen pages.
-
no Im saying amaral has lost based on what we have seen happening..perhaps Im just a lot better at assessing evidence than you and others are.....I am confident i will be proved right
When I wonder?
-
No change there then six months down the track eh Ellie?
I became a bit bored and flipped through the first dozen pages.
I don't know about you, but I suspect I might be senile before this is resolved.
-
the length of time this trial has taken is a poor reflection on the Portuguese justice system and of amaral himself..imo..
however progress seems to have been made and hopefully we will have a judgement early next year. I realise appeals may happen but a positive initial judgement for the mccanns will happen and I think that will be fantastic
-
the length of time this trial has taken is a poor reflection on the Portuguese justice system and of amaral himself..imo..
however progress seems to have been made and hopefully we will have a judgement early next year. I realise appeals may happen but a positive initial judgement for the mccanns will happen and I think that will be fantastic
or they will get their just desserts, and be left with egg on their face, and a large legal bill.
-
or they will get their just desserts, and be left with egg on their face, and a large legal bill.
I have given my opinion on what the outcome will be......you don't have the courage to do the same
-
Yet another immature comment.
Yet all too predictable.
There's a large legal bill coming dave.
Enjoy it. 8)-))) 8(0(*
That's like saying...someone's going to win...you don't have the conviction to make a prediction
-
That's like saying...someone's going to win...you don't have the conviction to make a prediction
I already have dave.
The mccanns have failed to prove their case for damages.
and all your bluster won't change that.
-
I already have dave.
The mccanns have failed to prove their case for damages.
and all your bluster won't change that.
Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.
-
Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.
The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.
Don't forget that.
-
The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.
Don't forget that.
that proves libel
-
The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.
Don't forget that.
#
Completely irrelevant. If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle.
If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.
-
#
Completely irrelevant. If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle.
If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.
An excellent point Jean-Pierre.
-
#
Completely irrelevant. If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle.
If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.
Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?
What did she base her 'view' on ?
The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence.
Abduction remains one scenario.
Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.
She walked out of the apartment is another.
The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.
Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?
There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.
and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.
-
that proves libel
That is not libel dave.
-
Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?
What did she base her 'view' on ?
The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence.
Abduction remains one scenario.
Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.
She walked out of the apartment is another.
The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.
Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?
There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.
and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.
So you approve of publication by others of a private diary, do you, Stephen?
-
So which is it, then, Stephen?
Madeleine's concealed remains in close proximity to the apartment (falsely attributed to Harrison by Amaral)?
Or the later evolution of Madeleine driven somewhere dead in the Renault scenic?
And on-topic, because these inconsistencies are what ought to bode ill for Amaral in respect of the verdict in the libel trial
Let's see what the judge decides. 8(0(*
-
So you approve of publication by others of a private diary, do you, Stephen?
Ask kate mccann.
-
Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?
What did she base her 'view' on ?
The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence.
Abduction remains one scenario.
Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.
She walked out of the apartment is another.
The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.
Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?
There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.
and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.
Publication of private diary by the NOTW.
The others who "share the view" have, in the most part, not engaged in such an active campaign - books, interiew, documentary, TV shows.
Bennet was another, btw.
-
the length of time this trial has taken is a poor reflection on the Portuguese justice system and of amaral himself..imo..
however progress seems to have been made and hopefully we will have a judgement early next year. I realise appeals may happen but a positive initial judgement for the mccanns will happen and I think that will be fantastic
I feel a Mandy Rice-Davies paraphrase coming on here 8(>((.
-
Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.
I thought you posted that it was a flop?
I must be mistaken I frequently am.
-
I thought you posted that it was a flop?
I must be mistaken I frequently am.
you are mistaken
-
#
Completely irrelevant. If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle.
If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.
What you say is correct, however:
I haven't read any of the books except Summers & Swann so I am in no position to know the answer to a key element. Did Dr Amaral, in his book, make an outright accusation or did he make a postulation based on the files and his experience? The latter seems to be suggested by the judgement made by the Court of Appeal.
Not to forget that the Lady Judge was frequently at great pains to make it quite plain it was her job to compare the files with the book not the witnesses.
-
What you say is correct, however:
I haven't read any of the books except Summers & Swann so I am in no position to know the answer to a key element. Did Dr Amaral, in his book, make an outright accusation or did he make a postulation based on the files and his experience? The latter seems to be suggested by the judgement made by the Court of Appeal.
Not to forget that the Lady Judge was frequently at great pains to make it quite plain it was her job to compare the files with the book not the witnesses.
Amaral has stated things as facts...ie...maddie IS dead...the parents covered up a crime.......his book is called...The Truth
if he had simply said that this is what might have happened he would not be in so much trouble
-
Amaral has stated things as facts...ie...maddie IS dead...the parents covered up a crime.......his book is called...The Truth
if he had simply said that this is what might have happened he would not be in so much trouble
How about giving page numbers or at least quoting from the book ?
The appeal court judges did not appear to share your view. So why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
Put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing of the case. When confronted with the problem he has a choice: accept what the appeal court judges said or believe a gash hand internet punter when he says the judges are wrong?
-
How about giving page numbers or at least quoting from the book ?
The appeal court judges did not appear to share your view. So why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
Put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing of the case. When confronted with the problem he has a choice: accept what the appeal court judges said or believe a gash hand internet punter when he says the judges are wrong?
To paraphrase you...you can think what you like. There is a transcript of amaral on tv saying quite clearly ...maddie died in the apartment and her parents covered up...the book is available online..I'm surprised you are not aware of the facts in the case. I wonder how many more do not realise what amaral has said...no wonder they don't realise the trouble he is in
All will become clear at the judgement
-
To paraphrase you...you can think what you like. There is a transcript of amaral on tv saying quite clearly ...maddie died in the apartment and her parents covered up...the book is available online..I'm surprised you are not aware of the facts in the case. I wonder how many more do not realise what amaral has said...no wonder they don't realise the trouble he is in
All will become clear at the judgement
Very unlikely.
One way or another, the case will drag on, unless of course the mccanns cut their losses, and don't appeal the decision.
-
IMO.... goncalo had every reason to suspect the mccs ....and write a book ...the below link is a very interesting read .....especially the reasoning by [the detective] goncalo ...scroll further down for the interview
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/maddie-case-goncalo-amaral-returns-to.html?m=1
-
To paraphrase you...you can think what you like. There is a transcript of amaral on tv saying quite clearly ...maddie died in the apartment and her parents covered up...the book is available online..I'm surprised you are not aware of the facts in the case. I wonder how many more do not realise what amaral has said...no wonder they don't realise the trouble he is in
All will become clear at the judgement
So the answer is you cannot provide what I asked.
Now why am I not surprised?
-
So the answer is you cannot provide what I asked.
Now why am I not surprised?
I have no intention of quoting from the book, either, but it's on-line and I'm sure you know where to find it.
Amaral spells out his belief that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents were probably responsible in the very last chapter.
-
IMO.... goncalo had every reason to suspect the mccs ....and write a book ...the below link is a very interesting read .....especially the reasoning by [the detective] goncalo ...scroll further down for the interview
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/maddie-case-goncalo-amaral-returns-to.html?m=1
Interesting quote from amaral from this link on the morais site..
HC: The parents have said that they were able to keep an eye on the apartment from the restaurant [Tapas] but that is hard to see how, particularly bearing in mind that it was night. Gonçalo Amaral, Dr. Moita Flores, said a few days ago, publicly, that it is his profound belief that Maddie likely died in this apartment, what is your conclusion?
GA: My conviction is identical, based on the evidence. [small cut/edit at 21:09] So, exactly what happened? There are the blood vestiges, the cadaver odour that appeared precisely in the place where the blood was,
So amaral thinks that if both dogs alert this confirms the presence of blood and cadaver odour.....how can anyone take him seriously?
-
I have no intention of quoting from the book, either, but it's on-line and I'm sure you know where to find it.
Amaral spells out his belief that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents were probably responsible in the very last chapter.
Was it in his book about Gerry not being Madelienes father. I remember he was hell bent trying to prove he wasn't.
-
How about giving page numbers or at least quoting from the book ?
The appeal court judges did not appear to share your view. So why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
Put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing of the case. When confronted with the problem he has a choice: accept what the appeal court judges said or believe a gash hand internet punter when he says the judges are wrong?
Gonçalo Amaral
Former Polícia Judiciária coordinator
00.33 - My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I’ve been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, on the 3rd of May 2007.
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
VC Filmes presents
Maddie The Truth of the Lie
I don't believe the appeal court judges are wrong...I believe that some of the statements that have been attributed to them are not their statemnets
-
Was it in his book about Gerry not being Madelienes father. I remember he was hell bent trying to prove he wasn't.
That doesn't feature in the book.
But there is something in the files that I reckon can link back directly to Amaral about that ...
Letter to the National Forensics Institute (INML) from Goncalo Amaral
17th August 2007
The present inquiry is in relation to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May from P da L.
The English authorities in possession of elements collected from the family home in Leicestershire, which are being examined in an unidentified laboratory, traced the girl's DNA profile, in annex to this document.
As it is necessary to the investigation we request the following:
1. Whether in the tests done by the INML Madeleine's profile was established?
2. In the case of a positive answer to point 1, that it should be determined whether the girl is the daughter of the parents identified ? Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Healy.
3. Information about whether the profile obtained by the INML corresponds to the profile traced in the English laboratory, on the request of the British authorities.
4. If there are differences between the English and Portuguese profiles that a report should be drawn up for this inquiry.
5. In the follow-up of point 4, we request to be informed whether in the English profile the girl is the daughter of the McCann couple.
6. Other information that might be of use to the investigation.
Signed G. Amaral
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419
The reply:
Vol IX Page 2419
Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral
22-08-2007
Reply to Queries
- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.
- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.
- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.
- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.
- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out.
Signed
-
Interesting quote from amaral from this link on the morais site..
HC: The parents have said that they were able to keep an eye on the apartment from the restaurant [Tapas] but that is hard to see how, particularly bearing in mind that it was night. Gonçalo Amaral, Dr. Moita Flores, said a few days ago, publicly, that it is his profound belief that Maddie likely died in this apartment, what is your conclusion?
GA: My conviction is identical, based on the evidence. [small cut/edit at 21:09] So, exactly what happened? There are the blood vestiges, the cadaver odour that appeared precisely in the place where the blood was,
So amaral thinks that if both dogs alert this confirms the presence of blood and cadaver odour.....how can anyone take him seriously?
You clearly do.
and you do know people are well aware he misconstrued the forensic evidence,
which was of course inconclusive.
-
You clearly do.
and you do know people are well aware he misconstrued the forensic evidence,
which was of course inconclusive.
You keep wheeling out the term "inconclusive" as some sort of trump card.
Do you know what it means?
-
You keep wheeling out the term "inconclusive" as some sort of trump card.
Do you know what it means?
Maybe yes, maybe no. *&*%£
-
Gonçalo Amaral
Former Polícia Judiciária coordinator
00.33 - My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I’ve been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, on the 3rd of May 2007.
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
VC Filmes presents
Maddie The Truth of the Lie
You consider that is proven to be untrue and is libelous?.
As I recall DCI Redwood expressed the view that Madeleine may have died in Apartment 5A, which by logical extension means she was not abducted.
-
You consider that is proven to be untrue and is libelous?.
As I recall DCI Redwood expressed the view that Madeleine may have died in Apartment 5A, which by logical extension means she was not abducted.
Andy Redwood is in no doubt Madeleine was abducted ....
-
Maybe yes, maybe no. *&*%£
Is it another term like "ex parte" and "evidence" to be drawn like a rapier or Colt 45 (depending on one's choice of literature)?.
-
Andy Redwood is in no doubt Madeleine was abducted ....
Is he really?
If he thinks, as he said, that it is a possibility she died in the apartment then he also must believe there is a possibility she was not abducted the two being kind of mutually exclusive.
-
Andy Redwood is in no doubt Madeleine was abducted ....
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Is it another term like "ex parte" and "evidence" to be drawn like a rapier or Colt 45 (depending on one's choice of literature)?.
Indeed it does.
I suppose it does depend also on between which two planetary orbits you find yourself. 8)--))
-
Was it in his book about Gerry not being Madelienes father. I remember he was hell bent trying to prove he wasn't.
Or to prove he was as it would impact on DNA analysis 8(>((
-
Maybe yes, maybe no. *&*%£
Thats rather good. ?{)(**
In legal terms it is a bit more subtle. If something is "inconclusive" you cant put it in the "it's a maybe so we'll give it half a point" box. It means that no conclusion can be drawn, but open to further investigation. Failing that further investigation its a "No".
-
Indeed it does.
I suppose it does depend also on between which two planetary orbits you find yourself. 8)--))
Are you alluding to he of the chocolate celestial t'pot
-
more from amaral..
.GA: If we take into account that, if we consider the traces that were found in the car boot…
JP: … which are in fact…
GA: … which are in fact from the little girl. In order to justify that bodily fluid as the lab says, it could only have been preserved and conserved in the cold because otherwise it would have been…
so amaral claims as fact that traces from maddies body were found in the hire car
-
Thats rather good. ?{)(**
In legal terms it is a bit more subtle. If something is "inconclusive" you cant put it in the "it's a maybe so we'll give it half a point" box. It means that no conclusion can be drawn, but open to further investigation. Failing that further investigation its a "No".
Indeed.
Has there been a further and independent examination of the original forensic material, or has it been destroyed ?
-
more from amaral..
.GA: If we take into account that, if we consider the traces that were found in the car boot…
JP: … which are in fact…
GA: … which are in fact from the little girl. In order to justify that bodily fluid as the lab says, it could only have been preserved and conserved in the cold because otherwise it would have been…
so amaral claims as fact that traces from maddies body were found in the hire car
The only deduction from your posts, pun intended, is that you think Amaral's conclusions are damaging to the McCann's.
-
The only deduction from your posts, pun intended, is that you think Amaral's conclusions are damaging to the McCann's.
no...amaral is claiming things as facts...that are not facts...traces belonging to maddies corpse being found in the hire car....if you don't realise that is libellous....
-
do you really think that things have to be disproved for libel to be established
If that question is resultant from my post I suggest you read the post again as it implies no such thing.
If you are subtly asking for advice because you are uncertain about libel try this:
"To establish a prima facie case of defamation, four elements are generally required: a false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence; and some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement".
In English and Welsh law the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate what he said is defensible.
If what he said was true then job jobbed. I can recommend several good books and papers if you wish to know more.
-
If that question is resultant from my post I suggest you read the post again as it implies no such thing.
If you are subtly asking for advice because you are uncertain about libel try this:
"To establish a prima facie case of defamation, four elements are generally required: a false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence; and some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement".
In English and Welsh law the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate what he said is defensible.
If what he said was true then job jobbed. I can recommend several good books and papers if you wish to know more.
I think you should read your books...in red...truth is a defense to libel....but the mccanns do not have to prove maddie didn't die in the apartment....amaral has to prove she did
-
I think you should read your books...in red...truth is a defense to libel....but the mccanns do not have to prove maddie didn't die in the apartment....amaral has to prove she did
I don't follow why you are saying something I said?
Good day sir.
-
Is he really?
If he thinks, as he said, that it is a possibility she died in the apartment then he also must believe there is a possibility she was not abducted the two being kind of mutually exclusive.
Wrong again.
They are investigating an intruder who abused children in their beds ...
-
If that question is resultant from my post I suggest you read the post again as it implies no such thing.
If you are subtly asking for advice because you are uncertain about libel try this:
"To establish a prima facie case of defamation, four elements are generally required: a false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence; and some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement".
In English and Welsh law the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate what he said is defensible.
If what he said was true then job jobbed. I can recommend several good books and papers if you wish to know more.
Portuguese law might be more useful in this case.
-
Portuguese law might be more useful in this case.
and no one on here is an authority on Portuguese law
-
Is he really?
If he thinks, as he said, that it is a possibility she died in the apartment then he also must believe there is a possibility she was not abducted the two being kind of mutually exclusive.
That's what he says: stranger abduction.
-
no...amaral is claiming things as facts...that are not facts...traces belonging to maddies corpse being found in the hire car....if you don't realise that is libellous....
You're clutching at straws Dave.
We've been through all this before.
Saying there was possibly indications of a dead body isn't libellous.
Get a grip on reality.
-
Wrong again.
They are investigating an intruder who abused children in their beds ...
Have SY proved a connection exists, or is this more hot air ?
-
That's what he says: stranger abduction.
He may believe in it.
He also may believe in 6 eyes aliens from Alpha Centauri, but it doesn't make it true.
-
You're clutching at straws Dave.
We've been through all this before.
Saying there was possibly indications of a dead body isn't libellous.
Get a grip on reality.
he doesn't use the words possibly..if he did that wouldn't be libellous...he states it as a fact
GA: … which are in fact from the little girl
-
he doesn't use the words possibly..if he did that wouldn't be libellous...he states it as a fact
GA: … which are in fact from the little girl
How do you know the 'traces' from various sampled areas weren't ?
and Dave, you can't libel the dead.
-
How do you know the 'traces' from various sampled areas weren't ?
and Dave, you can't libel the dead.
are you another one just acting thick
-
are you another one just acting thick
No Dave.
That's been your prerogative on this forum and then some.
-
How do you know the 'traces' from various sampled areas weren't ?
and Dave, you can't libel the dead.
Erm... libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal.
ETA:
From the 2007 Penal Code:
Artigo 185.o
Ofensa à memória de pessoa falecida
1 - Quem, por qualquer forma, ofender gravemente a memória de pessoa falecida é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
2 - É correspondentemente aplicável o disposto:
a) Nos n.os 2, 3 e 4 do artigo 180.o; e
b) No artigo 183.o
3 - A ofensa não é punível quando tiverem decorrido mais de 50 anos sobre o falecimento.
Article 185
Offence against a deceased person's memory.
1 - Who , in any way , serious injury to person's memory deceased is punished with imprisonment up to six months or a fine of up to 240 days.
2 - It is correspondingly applicable provisions :
a) in paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 of Article 180 ; and
b) Article 183
3 - The offence is not punishable when it has been more than 50 years after death.
-
Erm... libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal.
Please explain how you libel the dead ?
So you think Madeleine is alive then ?
Perhaps in that lawless village that Edgar mentioned 10 miles from PDL.
It also beggars the question as to how you're so up on Portuguese Law.
-
Please explain how you libel the dead ?
So you think Madeleine is alive then ?
Perhaps in that lawless village that Edgar mentioned 10 miles from PDL.
It also beggars the question as to how you're so up on Portuguese Law. It seems very personal dave .
Check my edit to my previous post: Article 185 of the 2007 Penal Code.
-
Dearie me. Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.
-
Dearie me. Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.
I didn't quite understand why the issue of libelling Madeleine came up. I was just pointing out to Stephen that libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal, whereas it isn't in the UK.
The main issue for Madeleine isn't about "libel" as such, but whether asserting that she's dead with no supporting evidence beyond the unexplained say-so of a Springer spaniel has affected her right to be found (alive, or even possibly deceased).
-
Dearie me. Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.
Perhaps Alfred you can provide the evidence that there wasn't any possibility of a dead body being in the apartment.
As to the car, the possibility of secondary transfer could exist.
-
I didn't quite understand why the issue of libelling Madeleine came up. I was just pointing out to Stephen that libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal, whereas it isn't in the UK.
The main issue for Madeleine isn't about "libel" as such, but whether asserting that she's dead with no supporting evidence beyond the unexplained say-so of a Springer spaniel has affected her right to be found (alive, or even possibly deceased).
Re: the bit in bold - yes I know Carana, my exasperation was not with you.
If Amaral has stated that it is a fact that that Madeleine's body was put in the Scenic then this is a totally unsubstantiated allegation and is libellous. Under no circumstances in a civilised and fair society could it be considered fair comment.
-
Re: the bit in bold - yes I know Carana, my exasperation was not with you.
If Amaral has stated that it is a fact that that Madeleine's body was put in the Scenic then this is a totally unsubstantiated allegation and is libellous. Under no circumstances in a civilised and fair society could it be considered fair comment.
not according to Stephen it aint
-
A different issue concerning the differences between PT and UK law on this is that, unlike the UK, in civil defamation suits, as in other civil liability cases, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff. Exceptions are when there is a legal presumption. (I'm sure there is a thread on this in here somewhere or other.)
In Murat's appeal case, the ruling was that one applied (which seemingly hadn't been taken into account in the initial trial), as he was suing a newspaper, i.e., press laws applied.
I have no idea whether this presumption would apply in this case or not.
ETA
I - Em matéria de responsabilidade civil, por ofensa do crédito e do bom nome, o ónus da prova cabe ao lesado, limitado à existência das imputações ofensivas dos bens em causa.
(...)
VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument
There's more on defamation here (in English), starting on p. 121:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf
-
A different issue concerning the differences between PT and UK law on this is that, unlike the UK, in civil defamation suits, as in other civil liability cases, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff. Exceptions are when there is a legal presumption. (I'm sure there is a thread on this in here somewhere or other.)
In Murat's appeal case, the ruling was that one applied (which seemingly hadn't been taken into account in the initial trial), as he was suing a newspaper, i.e., press laws applied.
I have no idea whether this presumption would apply in this case or not.
ETA
I - Em matéria de responsabilidade civil, por ofensa do crédito e do bom nome, o ónus da prova cabe ao lesado, limitado à existência das imputações ofensivas dos bens em causa.
(...)
VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument
There's more on defamation here (in English), starting on p. 121:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf
Interesting but a long read.
I will return to that.
Thank you for posting it.
-
Gonçalo Amaral
Former Polícia Judiciária coordinator
00.33 - My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I’ve been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, on the 3rd of May 2007.
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
VC Filmes presents
Maddie The Truth of the Lie
I don't believe the appeal court judges are wrong...I believe that some of the statements that have been attributed to them are not their statemnets
So why haven't the McCann's had the judgement (for which Im sure they have many copies) correctly translated and distributed through their internet monitors?
Because the one translated and freely available now is pretty damning against them.
Why wouldn't they seek to have the "right" judgement out in the public domain?
-
So why haven't the McCann's had the judgement (for which Im sure they have many copies) correctly translated and distributed through their internet monitors?
Because the one translated and freely available now is pretty damning against them.
Why wouldn't they seek to have the "right" judgement out in the public domain?
Because it is of no importance...that's why their lawyers didn't contest it. How many people would you estimate have read the online judgement
-
This is copied from the translated judgement...
The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"
In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.
"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:
• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;
• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;
• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.
Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors
-
This is copied from the translated judgement...
The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"
In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.
"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:
• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;
• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;
• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.
Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors
Or maybe the judges were quoting in abbreviation that which was written in the archiving report, viz:
<<< snip>>>
"From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);"
<<< snip >>>
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi6
-
Or maybe the judges were quoting in abbreviation that which was written in the archiving report, viz:
<<< snip>>>
"From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);"
<<< snip >>>
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi6
What you are implying is that the judges gave their OWN INTERPRETATION of the report. Grime confirmed that the dogs alerted but did not confirm that the alert was to cadaver odour...Grime's the expert but what you are suggesting is that the judges have made comments on the alerts that Grime has not endorsed
-
This is copied from the translated judgement...
The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"
In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.
"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:
• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;
• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;
• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.
Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors
Why do you insist? Give it a rest. The statements in red are from the judges' ruling whether you want to believe it or not.
-
Why do you insist? Give it a rest. The statements in red are from the judges' ruling whether you want to believe it or not.
I never said they were not from the ruling...read the post again...but who was the author. As I have said if they were the judges words...then the judges were wrong...fact.
-
I never said they were not from the ruling...read the post again...but who was the author. As I have said if they were the judges words...then the judges were wrong...fact.
I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.
-
"The author describes ..."
Read in context, "the author" clearly means Mr Amaral.
Therefore the text that follows is the Judge summarising what Mr Amaral stated in court about the final report.
-
"The author describes ..."
Read in context, "the author" clearly means Mr Amaral.
Therefore the text that follows is the Judge summarising what Mr Amaral stated in court about the final report.
Precisely..at last someone can see the truth...the judges are merely repeating amarals testimony...not giving their own opinion
-
I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.
Try reading it again
-
I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.
The Judge asks wasn’t there something during the investigation that led to their constitution as arguidos.
MW Not particularly. He adds he wasn't involved in that matter.
The Judge states that two facts were established:
1) The British police dogs detected the scent of human blood and also that consistent with a cadaver bring present.
2) These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns.
The Judge asks whether these facts are of general knowledge in the UK.
MW Yes, they were, in 2007.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.msg77157#new
-
What you are implying is that the judges gave their OWN INTERPRETATION of the report. Grime confirmed that the dogs alerted but did not confirm that the alert was to cadaver odour...Grime's the expert but what you are suggesting is that the judges have made comments on the alerts that Grime has not endorsed
No it isn't. Just read the bit of the archiving report I have quoted and tell us where it differs in essence from the Appeal Court statements
No matter, it does not make any difference. The book ban was overturned, the Supreme Court upheld that decision and thus far the McCanns have taken no further action in that respect. The rest is argument for the sake of it.
-
Has the possibility of death in the apartment been disproved ?
A yes or no will suffice.
-
Has the possibility of death in the apartment been disproved ?
A yes or no will suffice.
Put it like this.
Occasionally questions of doubt arise.
Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.
But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.
Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Put it like this.
Occasionally questions of doubt arise.
Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.
But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.
Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.
I.e. NO.
-
Put it like this.
Occasionally questions of doubt arise.
Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.
But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.
Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.
Without a cadaver very little is certain yet. For anyone knows she fell down a hole.
-
The Judge asks wasn’t there something during the investigation that led to their constitution as arguidos.
MW Not particularly. He adds he wasn't involved in that matter.
The Judge states that two facts were established:
1) The British police dogs detected the scent of human blood and also that consistent with a cadaver bring present.
2) These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns.
The Judge asks whether these facts are of general knowledge in the UK.
MW Yes, they were, in 2007.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.msg77157#new
Thank you for that WS. I seem to have missed it.
However do take heed of the warning at the beginning of that thread.
-
This is copied from the translated judgement...
The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"
In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.
"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:
• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;
• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;
• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.
Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors
I'm confused.
Amaral has stated on several occasions that the book was based on the investigation up until he left (i.e., the first five months).
He was there when the dogs reacted, but he didn't attempt to organise a reconstruction during his tenure.
Why then does the appeal submission include a mention of attempts to organise a reconstruction (made by his successor quite some time later), as if it were a contemporaneous fact?
ETA: Further on:
"In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos."
What????
-
The learned judge appears to have a very clear understanding of exactly what the situation is in regard to the legal status of Madeleine's parents.
I think this may well be reflected in the judgement she will make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions
MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.
MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.
MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.
MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html
-
The learned judge appears to have a very clear understanding of exactly what the situation is in regard to the legal status of Madeleine's parents.
I think this may well be reflected in the judgement she will make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions
MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.
MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.
MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.
MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html
Emma Loach was a cracking witness....
ID – Question missing, likely "To what is due the effect of the book?"
EL thinks that the "nice, easy conclusion" explains the success of the book. There were many interviews and articles about the book, it was a kind of media tsunami. This upset and harmed more and more the McCanns. The documentary that claimed their daughter was dead and that they concealed the body created a lot of pain. It spread rapidly on the internet, with subtitles, millions of people watched it.
ID – How do you know that millions of people watched it?
EL -knows that two million watched it in the UK, but doesn't know how many outside of the UK.
....................
GP – How do you know about the audience of 2 millions? Have you a special access to these data?
EL answers no.
....................
Making sh*t up as she went along, no wonder she got upset.
-
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
..................
Don't bother us with facts or figures Miss Loach, just 'the people' or 'the majority' of them will do.
Brilliant!
-
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
..................
Don't bother us with facts or figures Miss Loach, just 'the people' or 'the majority' of them will do.
Brilliant!
Well with that 'quality' of witness, the only thing the mccanns can look forward to next year, is a large legal bill, and several slices of humble pie.
-
Why then does the appeal submission include a mention of attempts to organise a reconstruction (made by his successor quite some time later), as if it were a contemporaneous fact?
Sage observation ...
-
Regardless of the truth of the case. Why do you guys think the McCanns will not receive a payout? It could almost certainly be said he has damaged their reputation, but not the investigation imo - if this is indeed a damages trial. Though I'm not sure he has said it is unequivocally them. Rather he has suggested a thesis and provided circumstantial evidence to try and support the thesis....I think it's looking rather bad from what I've read for Mr Amaral, but then I havent been closely following. I mean the judge enquired after his financial status...
Going on previous form will we see an SY announcement/development around the same time as the outcome? 8(*(
-
Don't really think anything any witness from any side will be able to shake the foundation of the learned judge's reading of the situation in law as regards Madeleine's parents.
"The fact they are innocent" judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro
Seems to be very clear cut to me that the learned judge is quite unequivocal in her assessment. As an expert on Portuguese Law I think her opinion may carry more weight than that of uninformed posters on the internet.
All that remains to be seen is how she interprets points of law to make her decision in this case ... but let's make no mistake about it ... a Portuguese judge is on record confirming the AG has cleared the McCanns by stating in her court "they are innocent".
-
Don't really think anything any witness from any side will be able to shake the foundation of the learned judge's reading of the situation in law as regards Madeleine's parents.
"The fact they are innocent" judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro
Seems to be very clear cut to me that the learned judge is quite unequivocal in her assessment. As an expert on Portuguese Law I think her opinion may carry more weight than that of uninformed posters on the internet.
All that remains to be seen is how she interprets points of law to make her decision in this case ... but let's make no mistake about it ... a Portuguese judge is on record confirming the AG has cleared the McCanns by stating in her court "they are innocent".
It's just a ruse to trick them, Brietta, a cunning plan to spring an unpleasant surprise later.
DCI Redwood is in on it, too ...
-
Regardless of the truth of the case. Why do you guys think the McCanns will not receive a payout? It could almost certainly be said he has damaged their reputation, but not the investigation imo - if this is indeed a damages trial. Though I'm not sure he has said it is unequivocally them. Rather he has suggested a thesis and provided circumstantial evidence to try and support the thesis....I think it's looking rather bad from what I've read for Mr Amaral, but then I havent been closely following. I mean the judge enquired after his financial status...
Going on previous form will we see an SY announcement/development around the same time as the outcome? 8(*(
Do you really believe the SY investigation is timed to suit the vagaries of the ups and downs ... cancellations and vanishing lawyers of this court case?
Maybe you should consider backing up that statement with examples of previous complicity ... should be easy enough if there is previous form for it.
-
Do you really believe the SY investigation is timed to suit the vagaries of the ups and downs ... cancellations and vanishing lawyers of this court case?
Maybe you should consider backing up that statement with examples of previous complicity ... should be easy enough if there is previous form for it.
Largely I was being facetious. Of course politicians are not beyond stage managing certain events and releases of information. By politicians I don't think it is unfair to say SY have a certain political element to their organisation... I do think it will be interesting to see if there is further SY activity around this exact time. You of course by your response think this is out of the question?
-
Don't really think anything any witness from any side will be able to shake the foundation of the learned judge's reading of the situation in law as regards Madeleine's parents.
"The fact they are innocent" judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro
Seems to be very clear cut to me that the learned judge is quite unequivocal in her assessment. As an expert on Portuguese Law I think her opinion may carry more weight than that of uninformed posters on the internet.
All that remains to be seen is how she interprets points of law to make her decision in this case ... but let's make no mistake about it ... a Portuguese judge is on record confirming the AG has cleared the McCanns by stating in her court "they are innocent".
The judge was being ironic dontcha know... 8(0(*
-
The judge was being ironic dontcha know... 8(0(*
Innocent ?
but they haven't been charged. 8(*(
-
As a reminder, the only established facts are :
1. Three children were left by themselves for 5 successive nights.
2. Madeleine disappeared, cause not determined.
-
As a reminder, the only established facts are :
1. Three children were left by themselves for 5 successive nights.
2. Madeleine disappeared, cause not determined.
add Redwood said parents are not suspects...that's a fact....and a Portuguese judge has referred to them as innocent...that's another fact
-
add Redwood said parents are not suspects...that's a fact....and a Portuguese judge has referred to them as innocent...that's another fact
That they said it is certainly a fact. What they said may be true or false.
-
That they said it is certainly a fact. What they said may be true or false.
A unequivocal wording imo would be "they have been eliminated from the inquiry".
-
add Redwood said parents are not suspects...that's a fact....and a Portuguese judge has referred to them as innocent...that's another fact
Redwood is a believer, we know that.
Trouble is nothing tangible to show abduction.
As to innocence, that lies within the parameters of a court case, if charges are brought.
-
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
..................
Don't bother us with facts or figures Miss Loach, just 'the people' or 'the majority' of them will do.
Brilliant!
Added to Susan Hubbard knowing a Portuguese nurse in Canada who said that the Portuguese believed the book.
Not to mention Michael Wright "I haven't read the book I don't need to to know it's all lies" (or words to that effect).
The judge telling Ms Cameron she can go home and then Ms Cameron saying I haven't finished yet but the judge overrules her.
Stunners. Would you want them on your side?
-
Added to Susan Hubbard knowing a Portuguese nurse in Canada who said that the Portuguese believed the book.
Not to mention Michael Wright "I haven't read the book I don't need to to know it's all lies" (or words to that effect).
The judge telling Ms Cameron she can go home and then Ms Cameron saying I haven't finished yet but the judge overrules her.
Stunners. Would you want them on your side?
Truly incomparable witnesses.
No wonder certain people are worried.
They probably thought they could go into Portugal and Johnny foreigner would believe every word they gave as 'witnesses'.
-
So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?
-
So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?
Do you have verifiable data to show the McCann's have told the truth ?
Or do we take it on trust ? 8)-)))
-
So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?
I wasn't aware we were trying to prove it in court...
-
Truly incomparable witnesses.
No wonder certain people are worried.
They probably thought they could go into Portugal and Johnny foreigner would believe every word they gave as 'witnesses'.
Oh! I almost forgot the farce with Emma Loach's interpreter. She was so up to the mark that the judge had to help her out. It is beyond parody.
-
I wasn't aware we were trying to prove it in court...
In the court of public opinion certainly. And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events? Do you think she is wrong? Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point? Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case? Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?
-
In the court of public opinion certainly. And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events? Do you think she is wrong? Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point? Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case? Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?
Public opinion is not important, a witness going into court should be able to back up their assertions.
-
Largely I was being facetious. Of course politicians are not beyond stage managing certain events and releases of information. By politicians I don't think it is unfair to say SY have a certain political element to their organisation... I do think it will be interesting to see if there is further SY activity around this exact time. You of course by your response think this is out of the question?
I would think it merely co-incidental.
I am of the opinion it would be great for events to get moving ... so I really don't give two hoots when or for what motivation SY and the PJ are propelled forward ... my main concern is not when they act but that they do act.
-
A unequivocal wording imo would be "they have been eliminated from the inquiry".
Tell it to the judge ... she said it ... she is the expert ... so innocent it is.
-
Public opinion is not important, a witness going into court should be able to back up their assertions.
So opinions are not valid in court, is that what you're saying? Did the judge demand statistical evidence?
-
In the court of public opinion certainly. And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events? Do you think she is wrong? Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point? Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case? Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?
It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.
"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies
-
Tell it to the judge ... she said it ... she is the expert ... so innocent it is.
If only she'd tell us how she knows that.
Just think, she, like Mr Redwood, could tell us how she knows they are innocent & then the bile might cease.
If they told me I'd believe them, Britains finest & a learned judge, who wouldn't believe?
But it's got to be kept a secret for some reason hasn't it, 'not giving a running commentary' n'all that.
Ah well, continuing bile it is then.
-
It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.
"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies
Were you in court to witness these shenanigans first hand Alice? Only, I can't help thinking it probably wasn't quite as mind bogglingly hilarious if you were actually there. It's in the way you tell 'em, innit?
-
So opinions are not valid in court, is that what you're saying? Did the judge demand statistical evidence?
She probably just ignored it.
-
She probably just ignored it.
Who probably just ignored what?
-
It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.
"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies
Amaral's witnesses were far worse than you admit...who was the one who said WTF am I doing here...or words to that effect when he thought no one was listening. Opinions of the witness performance will be very much coloured by which side of the fence you sit. Don't try to pretend you are giving an objective observation.
The whole trial has been farcical and a poor advert for the Portuguese judicial system
-
SO protests’ arguing the issue is to consider the conclusions. He asks about the "death" theory.
MF says it is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction “through that window”.
This is the witness statement by Moita Flores. He states that all hypotheses are possible except for abduction through the window. So to all who claim abduction is not possible...Moita Flores has said it is.
-
Amaral's witnesses were far worse than you admit...who was the one who said WTF am I doing here...or words to that effect when he thought no one was listening. Opinions of the witness performance will be very much coloured by which side of the fence you sit. Don't try to pretend you are giving an objective observation.
The whole trial has been farcical and a poor advert for the Portuguese judicial system
You just can't stop it can you? why do you persist in repeating what I have said like some demented Mynah Bird?
The first line of the post you replied to was :
The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch.
What do you understand by both sides?
As for "my side" your perception of where I stand in this matter is defined entirely by your own prejudices.
-
...and the last line was...It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side. so stop pretending. It is blatantly obvious which side of the fence you sit....so stop pretending
C'mon, surely Alice meant that it was unfortunate that most of the comic antics were on Amaral's side, which would of course be unfortunate for those who are backing him to win. 8(>((
-
...and the last line was...It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side. so stop pretending. It is blatantly obvious which side of the fence you sit....so stop pretending
Well if it worries you that much why not make two columns one for plaintiffs and one for defendants then list out all the funnies in each column then make a summation.
In my book it will add up to one side being as bad as the other.
In your book there must be a score of some sort whereby Dr Amaral can be seen to be losing which rather says a lot about you.
-
Well if it worries you that much why not make two columns one for plaintiffs and one for defendants then list out all the funnies in each column then make a summation.
In my book it will add up to one side being as bad as the other.
In your book there must be a score of some sort whereby Dr Amaral can be seen to be losing which rather says a lot about you.
So now you are back to both sides being as bad as each other...
why speculate when hopefully we will soon have an indication of what eth judge thinks..and that's what counts.
I think amaral has lost for lots of reasons and I think that says a lot about me..such as I'm good at assessing evidence...I do it all the time, it's a scientific discipline
-
So now you are back to both sides being as bad as each other...
why speculate when hopefully we will soon have an indication of what eth judge thinks..and that's what counts.
I think amaral has lost for lots of reasons and I think that says a lot about me..such as I'm good at assessing evidence...I do it all the time, it's a scientific discipline
I think that comes under the heading of argument by assertion.
Beware the self publicist.
-
Tell it to the judge ... she said it ... she is the expert ... so innocent it is.
I was responding to the SY statement - not persons of interest etc... Words to the effect of eliminated from the inquiry would eliminate all doubt imo...
No idea what the judge meant... Some here saying she meant it with a sense of irony... All I can say is there are always so many people with firm opinions claiming the opposite about anything pertaining to the McCanns that it is sometimes hard to know what to believe... Will be very entertaining to me to see what happens in Feb - win or loose, given everyone seems so convinced! It's like supporting a football team. Ridiculous.
-
I was responding to the SY statement - not persons of interest etc... Words to the effect of eliminated from the inquiry would eliminate all doubt imo...
No idea what the judge meant... Some here saying she meant it with a sense of irony... All I can say is there are always so many people with firm opinions claiming the opposite about anything pertaining to the McCanns that it is sometimes hard to know what to believe... Will be very entertaining to me to see what happens in Feb - win or loose, given everyone seems so convinced! It's like supporting a football team. Ridiculous.
I was been ironic when I said the judge was being ironic :-)
-
Oh tbh I've scan read the last 10 pages as it seemed like the usual back and forth. So 'innocent' it is then. Or unless someone disagrees!
Edit: had a proper read back. Interesting question the judge asks. :) Let me do some straw clutching - maybe they are innocent in the eyes of the law as their arguido status was lifted, but have not necessarily been eliminated from the police investigation. Obviously what we would all like to know is have the parents been eliminated from the SY & PJ investigation. There is a distinction from not suspects to eliminated. Innocent = eliminated imo, so perhaps we have our answer.. Hope to see some conclusion reached soon in the trial.
-
I was responding to the SY statement - not persons of interest etc... Words to the effect of eliminated from the inquiry would eliminate all doubt imo...
No idea what the judge meant... Some here saying she meant it with a sense of irony... All I can say is there are always so many people with firm opinions claiming the opposite about anything pertaining to the McCanns that it is sometimes hard to know what to believe... Will be very entertaining to me to see what happens in Feb - win or loose, given everyone seems so convinced! It's like supporting a football team. Ridiculous.
The Judge was probably coming from word association to ask a question i.e McCanns claiming to be 'innocent' of Amarals theory- therefor, the judge probably asked if they were innocent blah blah. She cannot claim they ARE INNOCENT because they were never tried of any crime and found guilty or innocent!
Regards win or lose- the case was never made on the basis of hurt feelings or loss or reputations regarding the McCanns. They lost their reputations when they left their children alone in that apartment and have spent most of the money trying to PR various versions of account and to absolve themselves of ANY responsibility of their daughters fate: whatever that is/was.
And there was daftness on both sides during the case!
-
It's like supporting a football team. Ridiculous.
A just rebuke for many of us, I would say.
That is, almost, the level we have reduced it to, almost obscene when you gravity of the real-life situation we all debate and speculate about so freely ...
-
The Judge was probably coming from word association to ask a question i.e McCanns claiming to be 'innocent' of Amarals theory- therefor, the judge probably asked if they were innocent blah blah. She cannot claim they ARE INNOCENT because they were never tried of any crime and found guilty or innocent!
Regards win or lose- the case was never made on the basis of hurt feelings or loss or reputations regarding the McCanns. They lost their reputations when they left their children alone in that apartment and have spent most of the money trying to PR various versions of account and to absolve themselves of ANY responsibility of their daughters fate: whatever that is/was.
And there was daftness on both sides during the case!
a court never finds a defendant innocent
-
a court never finds a defendant innocent
Would you care to remind us of how hypothesis testing works in a court of law ?
-
Would you care to remind us of how hypothesis testing works in a court of law ?
A court never finds anyone innocent...do you not understand the basics
-
A court never finds anyone innocent...do you not understand the basics
Dave, do you understand the principles of hypothesis testing in court systems ?
-
Oh tbh I've scan read the last 10 pages as it seemed like the usual back and forth. So 'innocent' it is then. Or unless someone disagrees!
Edit: had a proper read back. Interesting question the judge asks. :) Let me do some straw clutching - maybe they are innocent in the eyes of the law as their arguido status was lifted, but have not necessarily been eliminated from the police investigation. Obviously what we would all like to know is have the parents been eliminated from the SY & PJ investigation. There is a distinction from not suspects to eliminated. Innocent = eliminated imo, so perhaps we have our answer.. Hope to see some conclusion reached soon in the trial.
I did reply to your post, with quotes and links, but it seems it got whooshed in the midst of OT comments being deleted.
To summarise, the McCanns are not suspects in either the UK or the PT investigations, both of which were opened following a lengthy review.
For some, that means that there is a massive multinational conspiracy / whitewhash; for others, it means that any doubts about the McCanns / clarification needed was sorted out at an early stage.
Both investigations were opened based on new lines of enquiry / leads which hadn't been adequately pursued.
-
Dave, do you understand the principles of hypothesis testing in court systems ?
Good question.
-
Good question.
what is good about it....the point I am making is that a court doesn't find a defendant innocent
-
Dave, do you understand the principles of hypothesis testing in court systems ?
The problem is that using criminal trials as an example of hypothesis testing is misleading. So therefore your question does not make sense. Sorry.
-
I did reply to your post, with quotes and links, but it seems it got whooshed in the midst of OT comments being deleted.
To summarise, the McCanns are not suspects in either the UK or the PT investigations, both of which were opened following a lengthy review.
For some, that means that there is a massive multinational conspiracy / whitewhash; for others, it means that any doubts about the McCanns / clarification needed was sorted out at an early stage.
Both investigations were opened based on new lines of enquiry / leads which hadn't been adequately pursued.
Yeah. It's hard to say whether they have been eliminated or they are not suspects at this time because the investigation is following more probable leads. Maybe they have new evidence that makes this undoubtedly so or simply analysed the scene, plus interviewed again all involved and that was the conclusion. Putting yourself in the shoes of the investigating forces for a moment and the situation becomes confused imo because there is a high probability this is exactly what they would also say if they were suspects in this scenario. Or is that in doubt? What would SY and PJ say if they were still suspects given the situation around this case? Do they always tell the truth to the public and their suspects? I have not read/seen anything regarding the PJ stance, so be interesting to read that.
-
Yeah. It's hard to say whether they have been eliminated or they are not suspects at this time because the investigation is following more probable leads. Maybe they have new evidence that makes this undoubtedly so or simply analysed the scene, plus interviewed again all involved and that was the conclusion. Putting yourself in the shoes of the investigating forces for a moment and the situation becomes confused imo because there is a high probability this is exactly what they would also say if they were suspects in this scenario. Or is that in doubt? What would SY and PJ say if they were still suspects given the situation around this case? Do they always tell the truth to the public and their suspects? I have not read/seen anything regarding the PJ stance, so be interesting to read that.
The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects.
(DN: PJ creates new team to investigate the Maddie case, 25 October 2013)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id466.html
-
The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects.
(DN: PJ creates new team to investigate the Maddie case, 25 October 2013)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id466.html
Yes, there is no doubt that the PJ (extant officers) are fully convinced that the shelved enquiry established the innocence of the McCanns ...
-
The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects.
(DN: PJ creates new team to investigate the Maddie case, 25 October 2013)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id466.html
A comment by a reporter hardly qualifies as a statement of intent by the Portuguese police but then if that is all you can provide to prove the McCanns are no longer suspects then please do carry on.
-
Yes, there is no doubt that the PJ (extant officers) are fully convinced that the shelved enquiry established the innocence of the McCanns ...
Total bollocks. 8@??)( @)(++(* The truth as well you know it is that the shelved enquiry was inconclusive. The Attorney General stated most eloquently that the parents had lost the opportunity to establish their innocence by THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
-
Total bollocks. 8@??)( @)(++(* The truth as well you know it is that the shelved enquiry was inconclusive. The Attorney General stated most eloquently that the parents had lost the opportunity to establish their innocence by THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
Quite simply if in Portugal you are expected to prove innocence then Portugal has no place in a civilised society
-
Quite simply if in Portugal you are expected to prove innocence then Portugal has no place in a civilised society
We've been here before Davie, not prove, establish.
-
We've been here before Davie, not prove, establish.
certainly not prove ...as I pointed out the incorrect translation....prior to that posters were claiming the McCanns should prove their innocence.
It is not up to the McCanns to establish their innocence...it's just that the Portuguese did such a piss poor job....they have to try and blame someone for their failure
-
The learned judge appears to have a very clear understanding of exactly what the situation is in regard to the legal status of Madeleine's parents.
I think this may well be reflected in the judgement she will make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions
MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.
MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.
MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.
MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.
MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.
MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html
A judge cannot make a statement of fact during evidence gathering thus her comment highlighted above should have read...
MC- Knowing they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
-
A judge cannot make a statement of fact during evidence gathering thus her comment highlighted above should have read...
MC- Knowing they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
Thank you for the clarification.
-
A judge cannot make a statement of fact during evidence gathering thus her comment highlighted above should have read...
MC- Knowing they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
The judge makes a statement of fact further up that quote. What should she have said instead of "but when the book was published they were no longer arguidos" then?
-
A judge cannot make a statement of fact during evidence gathering thus her comment highlighted above should have read...
MC- Knowing they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
So is the translation incorrect or did the judge say what has been recorded
-
So is the translation incorrect or did the judge say what has been recorded
Apparently it is an incorrect translation. Makes you wonder about the rest of it, dunnit? &%+((£
-
Don't worry, I'm sure the judge knew exactly what was said. ?{)(**
-
Apparently it is an incorrect translation. Makes you wonder about the rest of it, dunnit? &%+((£
I'm more than happy to consider an incorrect translation...I'm sure the reports and police files are full of them....particularly the ones that have been translated twice.
-
Don't worry, I'm sure the judge knew exactly what was said. ?{)(**
I'm not remotely worried, however you must admit it does make discussion about what was said in court a complete farce if the translation turns out to be incorrect here and there (and wherever it suits).
-
I'm more than happy to consider an incorrect translation...I'm sure the reports and police files are full of them....particularly the ones that have been translated twice.
Course, the McCanns translations, which Kate spent several months concocting her account of the truth from, them ones are spot on.
-
I'm not remotely worried, however you must admit it does make discussion about what was said in court a complete farce if the translation turns out to be incorrect here and there (and wherever it suits).
If you think the reports from the court are considerably inaccurate (apart from entirely understandable occasional problems with syntax like in the sentence highlighted) consider why the English press hasn't reported more of what was said itself.
-
If you think the reports from the court are considerably inaccurate (apart from entirely understandable occasional problems with syntax like in the sentence highlighted) consider why the English press hasn't reported more of what was said itself.
Have the English press reported considerably less than the PT press on this court case?
-
Have the English press reported considerably less than the PT press on this court case?
&%+((£ I don't know how much the Portuguese have covered it.
But they're not as obsessed with the case as the London papers are in any case. It's mainly just one Portuguese paper who report on it now isn't it?
-
&%+((£ I don't know how much the Portuguese have covered it.
But they're not as obsessed with the case as the London papers are in any case. It's mainly just one Portuguese paper who report on it now isn't it?
What, the libel case? I think more than one PT paper writes the odd line about it now and again.
-
&%+((£ I don't know how much the Portuguese have covered it.
But they're not as obsessed with the case as the London papers are in any case. It's mainly just one Portuguese paper who report on it now isn't it?
just wait for the verdict....
-
just wait for the verdict....
Assuming we ever get one &%+((£
-
What, the libel case? I think more than one PT paper writes the odd line about it now and again.
You're dodging my point: why haven't the London papers reported more from that courtroom?
-
You're dodging my point: why haven't the London papers reported more from that courtroom?
Erm....... Oh, I know. They are waiting for The Verdict.
-
Erm....... Oh, I know. They are waiting for The Verdict.
Nah Eleanor, there was no pretendy Portuguese translator/journalists that hadn't been sussed. ?>)()<
-
Erm....... Oh, I know. They are waiting for The Verdict.
They have done articles during the year when there were easy opportunities for headlines that wouldn't get them into trouble.
You'd think they'd have continued in that vein if they'd had the opportunity wouldn't you?
-
They have done articles during the year when there were easy opportunities for headlines that wouldn't get them into trouble.
You'd think they'd have continued in that vein if they'd had the opportunity wouldn't you?
Perhaps like me, they haven't got a clue about what is going on.
-
Perhaps like me, they haven't got a clue about what is going on.
I know the feeling 8(8-))
-
I know the feeling 8(8-))
It is all dreadfully confusing, not least the language barrier. So all we can do is wait for the verdict. How long has this been going on for now? And will the verdict make sense when we do get to hear it.
I somewhat doubt it, somehow. But I do expect loads of room or speculation.
-
It is all dreadfully confusing, not least the language barrier. So all we can do is wait for the verdict. How long has this been going on for now? And will the verdict make sense when we do get to hear it.
I somewhat doubt it, somehow. But I do expect loads of room or speculation.
18 months it will be by March. I think you're right, there will always be room for different interpretations. Perhaps communication will initially be secret, some sort of agreement will be reached, and then we'll almost certainly not know what happened between them.
Does anyone think any of the parties have the appetite (or resources) to keep the fight going indefinitely with appeals etc?
-
It seems longer than eighteen months, what with all the book banning stuff, and I'm pretty sure the complaint was file longer ago than that. But no matter, the end is nigh.
Will the loser Appeal? Probably. What have any of them got to lose? Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.
-
There was no agreement to be had when it wasn't known what the law and judge says. The circumstances of cases like these are pretty unique and no two cases are exactly the same.
But if the conclusions/decisions are first given privately the resolute stances may change.
Who knows &%+((£
-
It seems longer than eighteen months, what with all the book banning stuff, and I'm pretty sure the complaint was file longer ago than that. But no matter, the end is nigh.
Will the loser Appeal? Probably. What have any of them got to lose? Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.
Ah right, the whole thing? About 5 and a half years isn't it?
-
Everyone mostly forget the other three defendants. It's not the A v B it's portrayed as. If they don't want to carry on with it after this decision then one way or another it's over isn't it?
-
Everyone mostly forget the other three defendants. It's not the A v B it's portrayed as. If they don't want to carry on with it after this decision then one way or another it's over isn't it?
I don't know. Supposing Goncalo Amaral loses, which is not at all certain, would it be possible for him to Appeal and for the other Defendants to drop it?
-
Happy new year to one and all!
It depends on the verdict. Assuming it goes in the McCanns favour, that it could be joint or individual judgement.
If it is joint and several, then they would each be liable for all of the damages, in which case ringfencing the money may be a blessing. It would mean that appeals made would also have to be joint and several, and that could be interesting.
But it is also possible for the judge to consider individual liability, in which case each of the three respondants would be able to choose to settle or appeal as they wish.
-
You're dodging my point: why haven't the London papers reported more from that courtroom?
Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe? You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?
-
Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe? You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?
Because apart from a gross or so of saddos like us on this forum the rest of the world is bored to tears with it?
Which is about what you said so chalk it up on the calendar Alf bo ; New year's day 2015 we agreed 8(>((
-
Because apart from a gross or so of saddos like us on this forum the rest of the world is bored to tears with it?
Which is about what you said so chalk it up on the calendar Alf bo ; New year's day 2015 we agreed 8(>((
not according to what I read on here...more and more people are now questioning the mccanns and the mccanns are losing support daily..
*&*%£ *&*%£
-
Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe? You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?
They may not be greatly interested in events in a Lisbon court but the case is now part of the nation's psyche, like Lucan or the Great Train Robbery. It's so rare a case, and was such a phenomenon in 2007, that it surely always will be.
The English papers know this, or why would they keep putting the case on their front pages?
But you're right, they're not greatly interested in the fight over a book that didn't actually say very much anyway (though the documentary is clearly more challenging).
-
They may not be greatly interested in events in a Lisbon court but the case is now part of the nation's psyche, like Lucan or the Great Train Robbery. It's so rare a case, and was such a phenomenon in 2007, that it surely always will be.
The English papers know this, or why would they keep putting the case on their front pages?
But you're right, they're not greatly interested in the fight over a book that didn't actually say very much anyway (though the documentary is clearly more challenging).
Well yes, obviously if it was the McCanns on trial accused of disposing of their daughter's body I'm sure we'd be getting a lot more detail in the world's press about who said what, but I doubt very many people are that interested in the minutiae of this libel case (cue shrieks of indignation that this is a damages case, not a libel case).
-
Why should they be? - just a bunch of nonentities playing out a courtroom drama in some foreign clime.
-
Why should they be? - just a bunch of nonentities playing out a courtroom drama in some foreign clime.
Absolutely no reason at all, which was my point at the outset. That said, I'm sure you'd agree with my point that if it were the McCanns on trial in Portugal the interest would be far greater, whether you consider them to be nonentities or not.
-
The media would guarantee it . We would have wall to wall coverage, whether we wanted it or not. Example Dwani case.
-
The media would guarantee it . We would have wall to wall coverage, whether we wanted it or not. Example Dwani case.
You would of course be absolutely riveted, despite your apparent world-weary cynicism.... 8)--))
-
Not sure about riveted, but I would certainly try to keep up to speed. Once a day with something like the Independent, perhaps
-
Not sure about riveted, but I would certainly try to keep up to speed. Once a day with something like the Independent, perhaps
Not to mention regular updates from contributors to your favourite Discussion Forum... @)(++(*
-
Indeed, where would we be without their invaluable information?
-
Indeed, where would we be without their invaluable information?
Oh, completely at the mercy of the evil MSM of course. @)(++(*
-
Topic, Please.
-
Any news on when the ruling is expected...can't wait
-
I'm afraid you'll have to.
-
Any news on when the ruling is expected...can't wait
Something rattles around in my brain that the verdict was to be reserved until February.
Can't think where I saw it, though ...
-
I'm afraid you'll have to.
it will be worth it
-
Next sitting is 21st Jan 2015 when all the proven evidence will be considered. Verdict is not expected until March.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/92dec14/Astro_10_12_2014.htm
-
it will be worth it
You seem so sure of the outcome. Bet you didn't see the book ban being overturned.
-
A woman at the trial admitted literally, not ironically, that Amaral's book is largely made up.
Those of us who have read it, and also compared it with the files, concur ...
-
It all dependents upon what the judge thinks and says , not anyone else.
-
A woman at the trial admitted literally, not ironically, that Amaral's book is largely made up.
Those of us who have read it, and also compared it with the files, concur ...
The devil is in the detail ferryman. Read the context of the comment.
-
The devil is in the detail ferryman. Read the context of the comment.
context is everything....practically every statement by the mccannns is taken out of context
-
context is everything....practically every statement by the mccannns is taken out of context
And the facial expressions. And their body language. God help them if judge is looking at them too, Eh! @)(++(*
-
From the ruling overturning the injunction on Amaral's book:
- this hearing is NOTHING to do with defamation or libel - which is the Principal Action to be heard at some date in the future. It limited itself to deciding which of two sets of fundamental rights in Portuguese Law should hold sway in the specific circumstance presented, which circumstance was that each rendition of the proposition of a dead child and the hiding of her body impeded the search for a live child, and this impediment caused additional suffering to the parents who are behind the conduct of that search.
The request was made solely to stop further renditions of that proposition in its various forms.
- the actions requested by the plaintiffs were not granted in the manner they wanted; they were all modified in execution.
The requested actions are shown as a) through f) on page 7, while the DECISION is shown, in the same order and lettering, on pages 15 a
There we have it: from the horse's mouth (the ruling overturning the injunction on the book), confirmation both that that hearing did not consider the question of libel, and that present proceedings is, indeed, a libel trial.
Further:
I would suggest, however, that any argument, opinion or comment as to the possible death of the missing child, or to the hiding of the body under such a circumstance, does not use either the book or the video as a foundation; rather, it should look to the content of the official case file.I reiterate that, in my understanding of it, this is not a judgement on defamation or libel, and my understanding of this is reinforced by the penultimate line
-
Whose translation is this ?
Second, what will you do when the mccnns fail in their action against the three defendants ?
-
Whose translation is this ?
Second, what will you do when the mccnns fail in their action against the three defendants ?
The translation is from Pamalam's site:
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
-
Weaving her way deftly through many different considerations with we, the readers,
being gripped firmly by the ring in our nose and led through two pages of cogitation to
the rather abrupt conclusion on page 36 that the principal action [the forthcoming
defamation/libel action which gave rise to these injunction hearings] is the appropriate
place to get to the bottom of all the matters she raised.
-
Weaving her way deftly through many different considerations with we, the readers,
being gripped firmly by the ring in our nose and led through two pages of cogitation to
the rather abrupt conclusion on page 36 that the principal action [the forthcoming
defamation/libel action which gave rise to these injunction hearings] is the appropriate
place to get to the bottom of all the matters she raised.
and when the mccanns lose this action, what next ?
-
Best not to count chickens - the law can be very unpredictable in its application.
-
Best not to count chickens - the law can be very unpredictable in its application.
That's not quite the point of (immediate) discussion.
Is the depiction, in certain quarters, of the libel trial as something other than a libel trial mere ignorance?
Or is it an attempt to mislead?
-
That's not quite the point of (immediate) discussion.
Is the depiction, in certain quarters, of the libel trial as something other than a libel trial mere ignorance?
Or is it an attempt to mislead?
Excellent find Ferryman...This CONFIRMS what the more enlightened amongst us have been saying for some time.
Libel/defamation have not yet been decided...the overturn of the injunction DID not decide the libel question....that will be revealed shortly as a result of the present court proceedings
-
There we have it: from the horse's mouth (the ruling overturning the injunction on the book), confirmation both that that hearing did not consider the question of libel, and that present proceedings is, indeed, a libel trial.
Yet another non sequitur, it says a future trial but doesn't say this future trial.
-
Yet another non sequitur, it says a future trial but doesn't say this future trial.
And this trial is a ................ trial?
-
So some say. I look on it more as an endurance test.
-
Yet another non sequitur, it says a future trial but doesn't say this future trial.
but it does say...very clearly.... that the question of defamation has not been decided..as some have claimed...let's see how you wriggle out of that one...
-
but it does say...very clearly.... that the question of defamation has not been decided..as some have claimed...let's see how you wriggle out of that one...
Still doesn't mean that this is a defamation trial...
-
Still doesn't mean that this is a defamation trial...
What is it then?
-
What is it then?
It appears to be a damages trial which doesn't seem to have an equivalent in UK law.
-
Still doesn't mean that this is a defamation trial...
I don't care what it is. I just want a result so we can move on to the next stage of arguing over the outcome and its consequences. ?{)(**
-
I don't care what it is. I just want a result so we can move on to the next stage of arguing over the outcome and its consequences. ?{)(**
*&*%£
-
I don't care what it is. I just want a result so we can move on to the next stage of arguing over the outcome and its consequences. ?{)(**
Me too.
-
It appears to be a damages trial which doesn't seem to have an equivalent in UK law.
Damages caused by what though?
-
Damages caused by what though?
Er, Libel?
-
Er, Libel?
So it's do the damages bit first, then decide whether or not it was libel? OK.
-
I'd put money on us not knowing precisely what's decided. There will be compromise and agreement will include details being private.
-
Still doesn't mean that this is a defamation trial...
but it proves defamation has not been decided
-
I'd put money on us not knowing precisely what's decided. There will be compromise and agreement will include details being private.
It seems the parties had 6 months to reach a compromise and failed to do so
-
It seems the parties had 6 months to reach a compromise and failed to do so
That was then and this is now, after evidence has been read and heard.
-
Each side of course will claim they won. The McCanns can already claim that because book and dvd are no longer on sale. Their grievance that both are all over the internet is beyond the control of that court anyway.
But money details I expect will be private.
-
I don't care what it is. I just want a result so we can move on to the next stage of arguing over the outcome and its consequences. ?{)(**
Whatever the outcome, unless all parties agree, the appeals process is likely to last for at least another decade or two.
-
Whatever the outcome, unless all parties agree, the appeals process is likely to last for at least another decade or two.
8)><( If that's the case, will anyone be around to care?
I can't imagine the McCanns being overjoyed at that prospect nor possibly Amaral.
-
I read somewhere that if The McCanns win this then the damages can be paid prior to any Appeal. I have no idea if this is true.
-
I read somewhere that if The McCanns win this then the damages can be paid prior to any Appeal. I have no idea if this is true.
The court can award damages with time limit to pay,where there in interest can be charged daily. However, Dr Amaral can refuse/with hold on the grounds he is appealing.
He can appeal the courts judgement ,but that needs to be based on a judicial point, he can also appeal of the sum awarded.
-
The court can award damages with time limit to pay,where there in interest can be charged daily. However, Dr Amaral can refuse/with hold on the grounds he is appealing.
He can appeal the courts judgement ,but that needs to be based on a judicial point, he can also appeal of the sum awarded.
Thanks for that.
-
We just need to listen to the pronouncements of Amaral's own lawyers.
Santos requested that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
In its own right, that should tell you a great deal
In fact, it should tell you everything.
-
We just need to listen to the pronouncements of Amaral's own lawyers.
Santos requested that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
In its own right, that should tell you a great deal
In fact, it should tell you everything.
That's what you hope ferryman.
Unfortunately, the reason for the disappearance remains unsolved, and Amaral's hypothesis of accidental death is shared by many others.
It has not been disproved.
-
The reason for Madeleine's disappearance has yet to be determined.
Several possibilities remain.
Never forget that.
-
The reason for Madeleine's disappearance has yet to be determined.
Several possibilities remain.
Never forget that.
and that is EXACTLY why it is libellous to accuse the parents of any involvement...I understand libel
-
and that is EXACTLY why it is libellous to accuse the parents of any involvement...I understand libel
You may understand UK law?
-
You may understand UK law?
Thank you very much...your support is appreciated
-
I have no idea and don't really care that much, but lets wait for the verdict that counts - that of the judge.
good idea...let's stop all speculation...on everything
-
good idea...let's stop all speculation...on everything
Perhaps going a little far, but this is something that will be resolved, unlike many other topics under discussion.
-
Thank you very much...your support is appreciated
Though it appears to legal in the UK to report on questions raised under parliamentary privilege.
-
and that is EXACTLY why it is libellous to accuse the parents of any involvement...I understand libel
The case stops and rest with them.
No other person has been identified.
As it stands they were the last people to see her alive.
-
The case stops and rest with them.
No other person has been identified.
As it stands they were the last people to see her alive.
this is the libel thread and what you are saying has nothing to do with a defence to libel
-
We just need to listen to the pronouncements of Amaral's own lawyers.
Santos requested that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
In its own right, that should tell you a great deal
In fact, it should tell you everything.
It's not GA v McCanns. You're forgetting the other three parties.
-
It's not GA v McCanns. You're forgetting the other three parties.
I agree, Lyall. However if Amaral loses, will not the other defendants also have lost?
-
I agree, Lyall. However if Amaral loses, will not the other defendants also have lost?
&%+((£ I'm not a lawyer, Anna.
But two of the defendants presumably aren't concerned with the book, and the book publisher not with the dvd. GA may have no responsibility for the dvd either. Some or all of them may be insured, so the insurers are also involved. It's a lot more complicated than many think.
-
&%+((£ I'm not a lawyer, Anna.
But two of the defendants presumably aren't concerned with the book, and the book publisher not with the dvd. GA may have no responsibility for the dvd either. Some or all of them may be insured, so the insurers are also involved. It's a lot more complicated than many think.
I understand that Lyall,
Surely the success or not, of Amaral in the court case, will also contribute to the success or not of the others. Whoever used the book as a basis, will be judged on its use and the circulation of the content within, as will Amaral.
-
I understand that Lyall,
Surely the success or not, of Amaral in the court case, will also contribute to the success or not of the others. Whoever used the book as a basis, will be judged on its use and the circulation of the content within, as will Amaral.
The law applies equally to all of them, of course, even if they're not all there as responsible for the the exact same things.
But people ask would GA appeal (assuming it goes very badly)? when it must be all four who would have to make that decision. It would be difficult to see GA wanting to continue if the other three don't (.. I think). He might not even be able to if the book publisher doesn't want to?
-
The law applies equally to all of them, of course, even if they're not all there as responsible for the the exact same things.
But people ask would GA appeal (assuming it goes very badly)? when it must be all four who would have to make that decision. It would be difficult to see GA wanting to continue if the other three don't (.. I think). He might not even be able to if the book publisher doesn't want to?
who says all four must appeal..someone on a forum...I don't see why amaral could not appeal himself, if he has grounds
-
who says all four must appeal..someone on a forum...I don't see why amaral could not appeal himself, if he has grounds
It won't be Amaral or the other parties who will be appealing.
-
It won't be Amaral or the other parties who will be appealing.
probably not as he won't have any grounds...interesting how amaral went to so much trouble re the ward of court issue...if he thought he had won he wouldn't have to pay damages to anyone...he must realise he's lost
-
probably not as he won't have any grounds...interesting how amaral went to so much trouble re the ward of court issue...if he thought he had won he wouldn't have to pay damages to anyone...he must realise he's lost
Try reading the post again.
You clearly did not get the message.
-
It's not GA v McCanns. You're forgetting the other three parties.
The output of the other 3 parties is based on what Amaral wrote (and presumably spoke in interviews).
If Amaral is guilty of libel, so are they, for producing what Amaral wrote.
-
The output of the other 3 parties is based on what Amaral wrote (and presumably spoke in interviews).
If Amaral is guilty of libel, so are they, for producing what Amaral wrote.
Dream on. 8(0(*
-
However this libel case goes, I don't see how it could prove anything concerning what happened to Madeleine, only whether his allegations are judged to have hindered the search for her directly or indirectly and to what extent.
-
How can this be a libel case?...
8th july 2014
There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when Gerry McCann claims that he has something to say.
The judge - says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC - says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him - The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC - But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge - The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
And so it ended.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Sort of clarifies what the trial is about doesn't it.
-
Sort of clarifies what the trial is about doesn't it.
perhaps if you took this statement in the whole context of the trial you would understand what is going on
-
perhaps if you took this statement in the whole context of the trial you would understand what is going on
I'll just believe what the judge says the trial is about.
-
I'll just believe what the judge says the trial is about.
Then you might want to know exactly what the judge said..in context...and not a garbled translation...some of which have already been proved to be wrong
-
Then you might want to know exactly what the judge said..in context...and not a garbled translation...some of which have already been proved to be wrong
No dave, stop clutching at straws.
-
Interesting definition; I don't know how applicable it is to Portuguese libel.
For example, in Amaral's book he says something to the effect that in recent years there has been a drug called calpol-night.
Whilst (at the time he wrote it) that was literally true, and whilst Amaral stopped (just) short of saying Madeleine was given it, that is the impression far too many people formed, and Joana Morais in particular wrote a vicious and libellous blog on the subject.
Certainly by UK libel law, that reference (in Amaral's book) would be libel.
I really don't know whether the same would be true in Portugal
Here is what Amaral says about calpol-night:
MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns’ home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl – and also the twins – Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a “Calpol generation.” In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
Apart from the fact that Calpol has no sedative properties and so it is untrue to claim it facilitated sleep - the innuendo in that para is glaringly obvious IMO.
I notice that what we know as a Reward Star Chart is described as a Medical monitoring chart and so is completely misleading. IIRC Kate mentions in her book that when she described the reward chart - the PJ insisted on calling it a 'Punishment' Chart!
I suppose the language barrier or the differences in culture could be responsible for that misinterpretation - although IMO one wouldn't need to be a genius to be able to understand Kate's description. Reward charts are commonplace nowadays.
His book is littered with similar innuendo IMO - all designed to mislead his readers.
-
As regards Calpol.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol.html
and it includes what could happen with overdoses.
-
How can this be a libel case?...
8th july 2014
There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when Gerry McCann claims that he has something to say.
The judge - says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC - says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him - The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC - But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge - The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
And so it ended.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
From the trial in which the injunction was granted:
...In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html
I'm not sure who the third defendant is (quite possibly TVI), but it might mean that press laws would apply. If that's the case, the legal presumption that applied to Murat might also apply in this case.
This article in the Civil Code has always intrigued me.
ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)
Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Código_Civil_Português
The translation of this (found in some legal document)
Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."
To me, that sounds as if it doesn't really matter whether what is published / stated is true or not, i.e., the point being whether whatever was said / written caused damage. However, Murat initially lost his case...
Hmm. The mysteries of PT law... &%+((£
-
From the trial in which the injunction was granted:
...In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html
I'm not sure who the third defendant is (quite possibly TVI), but it might mean that press laws would apply. If that's the case, the legal presumption that applied to Murat might also apply in this case.
This article in the Civil Code has always intrigued me.
ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)
Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Código_Civil_Português
The translation of this (found in some legal document)
Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."
To me, that sounds as if it doesn't really matter whether what is published / stated is true or not, i.e., the point being whether whatever was said / written caused damage. However, Murat initially lost his case...
Hmm. The mysteries of PT law... &%+((£
There lies the crux of the matter.
The mccanns have singularly failed to show the book harmed any 'search'.
Amaral's thesis was not isolated to him.
It was a working hypothesis, which has not been disproved, i.e. that Madeleine died in the apartment. Redwood himself has admitted that.
As to psychological damage, they have also failed to show that.
Not one medical practitioner has come forward to back that up with ANY empirical evidence whatsoever.
P.S. Pike doesn't count.
As to the ward of court issue, what has happened there ?
-
Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.
IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual. That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.
It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.
-
Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.
IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual. That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.
It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.
Completely irrelevant.
Have you forgotten a simple principle ?
People can make up their own minds on the case and don't have to be brainwashed by the mccanns story.
-
Completely irrelevant.
Have you forgotten a simple principle ?
People can make up their own minds on the case and don't have to be brainwashed by the mccanns story.
If the book is irrelevant why do people use it as a source of evidence to back up their claims?
-
If the book is irrelevant why do people use it as a source of evidence to back up their claims?
I wouldn't say the book is irrelevant, but its relevance is a malign one.
It encourages people to believe Madeleine is dead, and therefore harms the search for her.
-
Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.
IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual. That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.
It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.
If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'
-
If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'
They can't and they know it.
-
Regarding the ward of the court issue, the McCanns have 30 days from the 21st, the date of the next session, to present the authorisation from the High Court to represent Madeleine in the court case. If they are unable to present this document, the case will continue with the parents and twins as the sole plaintiffs.
-
I wouldn't say the book is irrelevant, but its relevance is a malign one.
It encourages people to believe Madeleine is dead, and therefore harms the search for her.
The main damage done re this book is that people reading it were deliberately led to believe by the author that it was a first hand account written by the Lead Investigator who had had personal contact with the McCanns. This would definitely influence people to believe the contents IMO.
Nothing could be further from the truth and I hope the fact that Amaral had never met or spoken to KM and only briefly met GM was made crystal clear to the judge.
-
As regards Calpol.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol.html (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol.html)
and it includes what could happen with overdoses.
There was only one Calpol available in May 2007 and it did not contain any sedative. Night Calpol came out later.
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1407-calpol-letter-from-johnson-johnson
-
There was only one Calpol available in May 2007 and it did not contain any sedative. Night Calpol came out later.
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1407-calpol-letter-from-johnson-johnson
That is correct, DCI. It came onto the shelves in Sep 2007
-
Just to add a bit more confusion...
(I am a bit wary of comparing Murat's trial too closely to this one as there are quite a few differences.)
From Murat's appeal trial, talking about the initial ruling (not sure whether this the judge's ruling or whether that was part of the defence's submission):
Mas também, em rigor, e por outro lado, a própria consideração da matéria provada em sede de danos se mostra toda ela desnecessária, desde que, como assim se verifica na sentença recorrida, se julga que “não logrou o Autor provar um dos requisitos da responsabilidade civil que é desde logo o da ilicitude dos factos”, e “Não se vislumbra assim, qualquer ilicitude na conduta dos RR.”.
No domínio da responsabilidade civil por ato ilícito, não se verificando este, não ocorre aquela, cfr. art.º 483º, do Código Civil.
Perhaps Montclair or someone else could help if I've misunderstood this. The gist (referring to the initial ruling document) seems to be that Murat was unable to prove one of the requirements for incurring civil liability: the illicitness of the facts, and therefore the defendants' actions weren't deemed to be illicit.
So... off to see what Article 483 was about (from source posted earlier):
Article 483 of the Civil Code imposes civil liability on the authors of illicit facts. If a person
violates someone else’s rights or any legal rule that protects the interests of others with
prejudicial intention or negligently illicitly is obliged to compensate the harmed person for the
damage caused. Article 484 of the Civil Code also foresees liability for an offence against
somebody else’s reputation or good name.
What exactly is an "illicit fact"? Skimming through the Murat appeal, as far as I can gather, it seems to refer to statements of fact which were false; known to be false; had been inadequately researched as to their veracity; or had been obtained by illicit means.
Is Article 483 a sine qua non requirement? Or does it only apply if it is invoked by the plaintiff?
That raises quite a few questions...
If it's a sine qua non condition, how does that fit with the judge's reply to Gerry? Did she mean that it wasn't the right moment in the proceedings to raise such issues? Or that the case wouldn't be dealing with such issues at all?
Amaral seems to have stated various types of "facts": some reasonably accurately reflect the content of the files up until he left; others appear to be hearsay, and some of it doesn't appear to be in the publicly accessible files.
Does the mere fact that a piece of information is recorded in the files make it true? CdaM believed that they were covered by that in the Murat case, but then they weren't police officers whose job is to sort out reliable versus mistaken or malicious statements.
Then there is his interpretation of the "facts": some of it appears reasonable; some of it appears to be cherry-picked; some of it appears to have become exaggerated over time (cf some of his interviews) and some of it appears to be quite garbled.
A defence is honest mistakes made in good faith. However, at what point do honest mistakes / misunderstandings made in good faith stretch credulity, particularly from someone who the general public would assume to be a seasoned expert?
At what point during his interviews over time should he be reasonably expected to have read the files and informed the public of such mistakes or misinterpretations? If the defence is that his interviews only reflect the "facts" and his analysis until his departure, how clear is that for the majority of his readers / viewers several years later?
ETA: How much is acceptable as literary licence?
-
Just to add a bit more confusion...
(I am a bit wary of comparing Murat's trial too closely to this one as there are quite a few differences.)
From Murat's appeal trial, talking about the initial ruling (not sure whether this the judge's ruling or whether that was part of the defence's submission):
Mas também, em rigor, e por outro lado, a própria consideração da matéria provada em sede de danos se mostra toda ela desnecessária, desde que, como assim se verifica na sentença recorrida, se julga que “não logrou o Autor provar um dos requisitos da responsabilidade civil que é desde logo o da ilicitude dos factos”, e “Não se vislumbra assim, qualquer ilicitude na conduta dos RR.”.
No domínio da responsabilidade civil por ato ilícito, não se verificando este, não ocorre aquela, cfr. art.º 483º, do Código Civil.
Perhaps Montclair or someone else could help if I've misunderstood this. The gist (referring to the initial ruling document) seems to be that Murat was unable to prove one of the requirements for incurring civil liability: the illicitness of the facts, and therefore the defendants' actions weren't deemed to be illicit.
So... off to see what Article 483 was about (from source posted earlier):
Article 483 of the Civil Code imposes civil liability on the authors of illicit facts. If a person
violates someone else’s rights or any legal rule that protects the interests of others with
prejudicial intention or negligently illicitly is obliged to compensate the harmed person for the
damage caused. Article 484 of the Civil Code also foresees liability for an offence against
somebody else’s reputation or good name.
What exactly is an "illicit fact"? Skimming through the Murat appeal, as far as I can gather, it seems to refer to statements of fact which were false; known to be false; had been inadequately researched as to their veracity; or had been obtained by illicit means.
Is Article 483 a sine qua non requirement? Or does it only apply if it is invoked by the plaintiff?
That raises quite a few questions...
If it's a sine qua non condition, how does that fit with the judge's reply to Gerry? Did she mean that it wasn't the right moment in the proceedings to raise such issues? Or that the case wouldn't be dealing with such issues at all?
Amaral seems to have stated various types of "facts": some reasonably accurately reflect the content of the files up until he left; others appear to be hearsay, and some of it doesn't appear to be in the publicly accessible files.
Does the mere fact that a piece of information is recorded in the files make it true? CdaM believed that they were covered by that in the Murat case, but then they weren't police officers whose job is to sort out reliable versus mistaken or malicious statements.
Then there is his interpretation of the "facts": some of it appears reasonable; some of it appears to be cherry-picked; some of it appears to have become exaggerated over time (cf some of his interviews) and some of it appears to be quite garbled.
A defence is honest mistakes made in good faith. However, at what point do honest mistakes / misunderstandings made in good faith stretch credulity, particularly from someone who the general public would assume to be a seasoned expert?
At what point during his interviews over time should he be reasonably expected to have read the files and informed the public of such mistakes or misinterpretations? If the defence is that his interviews only reflect the "facts" and his analysis until his departure, how clear is that for the majority of his readers / viewers several years later?
ETA: How much is acceptable as literary licence?
You would kind of expect that Amaral would know that the PJ (in common with police forces around the world!) take individual statements from witnesses.
So what is his excuse for saying that the Gaspars gave a joint statement?
Of course, the point is vital, because Mr G's statement and his wife's could scarcely be more different.
And however did Amaral conclude that Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and even hinted that Kate and Gerry might be responsible for their daughter's death?
That is either incompetence or attempt to mislead.
Does Portuguese libel law allow that degree of latitude to those accused of libel?
-
Look on the bright side.
We may find out soomething tomorrow provided that:
The judge is not going to her granny's funeral.
One side or another hasn't fired a lawyer.
Everyone remembers to turn up.
One side or another on here doesn't blackball the translator.
Anyone for Lotto? 8)><(
-
You would kind of expect that Amaral would know that the PJ (in common with police forces around the world!) take individual statements from witnesses.
So what is his excuse for saying that the Gaspars gave a joint statement?
Of course, the point is vital, because Mr G's statement and his wife's could scarcely be more different.
And however did Amaral conclude that Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and even hinted that Kate and Gerry might be responsible for their daughter's death?
That is either incompetence or attempt to mislead.
Does Portuguese libel law allow that degree of latitude to those accused of libel?
Error in translation, no doubt.
-
Day 14 Jan 21st 2015 for reading of proven facts.
There is a possibility that “matter of facts" that the judge decided to consider isn’t going to be read publicly.
The norm is that in a civil trial the “matter of facts” isn’t publicly read but just released to the lawyers.
Public reading of the “matter of facts” is always read in penal trials.
Representatives will try to appear at court regardless.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm#14
These facts will form the basis of the judgement in February?
Wonder if the lawyers will be at liberty to release them publicly before then.
-
If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'
The book, along with constant accusations and lies on the internet made kate ill, really ill. It showed in nher face and body. That alone had an impact on her ability to take part in the search process. Likewise Gerry and family must have spent time supporting Kate. Time that they could have spent on the search.
The very fact that Amaral pronounced Madeleine dead, would also have affected the search. Who would be so interested in looking for a dead child ? A possibility of finding a living Madeleine is another proposition altogether.
Remember, Amaral was the detective in Charge. He wrote a very persuasive book. People would believe his writings. He was the lead detective FGS.
THink about it Faith.
-
Error in translation, no doubt.
There seem to be quite a number of errors in translation in his following interview - or could they be big fat lies?
For instance - Jane Tanner never claimed to have seen Murat at the scene - neither did she attend the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat - both claimed by Amaral in this interview in his desperation to discredit her.
Quote
Interview: Carlos Saraiva / Oscar Queiroz
snipped..........
Q.There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?
A. That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.
Who are they?
Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.
And how would you evaluate her testimony [Jane Tanner]?
As I said, she, at first, said she saw him at the scene. Then she began to retract it, saying that, after all, she had recognized him through an Indentikit picture. For several months, she came to recognize a number of people, through Identikit pictures. This speaks for itself about the credibility of her statements. Yet in the investigation there is a moment, a confrontation between the people previously mentioned, who say that Murat was there at the time the alarm was raised. That, and other things, is what has motivated the libel suit that Murat has brought against Ms. Tanner.
.......
Unquote
-
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699 (http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699)
Court reveals today proved matter against Gonçalo Amaral without presence of McCann's
Judge will proceed today to the statement of the facts that will be considered for the award of the process. Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros.
The court today reveals the matter proved at the trial of the case against former inspector Gonçalo Amaral by the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in May 2007, which will be absent from the session in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.
Judge Emilia Castro Melo and shall communicate the facts to be considered for the process of judgment, in which Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros to former Inspector of Judicial Police, for defamation and violation of rights and freedoms of the British family.
This action creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized
At issue is the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, in which the former coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation of Portimão Judicial Police defended the thesis that the parents of Madeleine McCann have been involved in the disappearance and in the child's corpse concealment.
Madeleine McCann disappeared after 4 years in the tourist village of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the family was on vacation.
-
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699 (http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699)
Court reveals today proved matter against Gonçalo Amaral without presence of McCann's
Judge will proceed today to the statement of the facts that will be considered for the award of the process. Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros.
The court today reveals the matter proved at the trial of the case against former inspector Gonçalo Amaral by the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in May 2007, which will be absent from the session in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.
Judge Emilia Castro Melo and shall communicate the facts to be considered for the process of judgment, in which Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros to former Inspector of Judicial Police, for defamation and violation of rights and freedoms of the British family.
This action creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized
At issue is the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, in which the former coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation of Portimão Judicial Police defended the thesis that the parents of Madeleine McCann have been involved in the disappearance and in the child's corpse concealment.
Madeleine McCann disappeared after 4 years in the tourist village of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the family was on vacation.
Thank you DCI. We will have to see what actually transpires.
I do notice that Joana Morais (friend of Amaral) seems to be a bit grumpy, and has hidden her blog so that may be indicative.
Time will tell.
-
Thank you DCI. We will have to see what actually transpires.
I do notice that Joana Morais (friend of Amaral) seems to be a bit grumpy, and has hidden her blog so that may be indicative.
Time will tell.
Yes, she said she's, "done with the case". I wonder why?
-
Yes, she said she's, "done with the case". I wonder why?
Maybe "her work here is done.
Or maybe she is a bit fed up.
We shall soon see.
-
Yes, she said she's, "done with the case". I wonder why?
Again?
Like the Terminator, she always comes back.
-
Mccanns not at hearing in Lisbon
I wonder why that is ?
Perhaps not confident of the outcome ?
8)--))
-
Mccanns not at hearing in Lisbon
I wonder why that is ?
Perhaps not confident of the outcome ?
8)--))
Really, Stephen. Why should they be?
-
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699 (http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699)
Court reveals today proved matter against Gonçalo Amaral without presence of McCann's
Judge will proceed today to the statement of the facts that will be considered for the award of the process. Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros.
The court today reveals the matter proved at the trial of the case against former inspector Gonçalo Amaral by the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in May 2007, which will be absent from the session in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.
Judge Emilia Castro Melo and shall communicate the facts to be considered for the process of judgment, in which Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros to former Inspector of Judicial Police, for defamation and violation of rights and freedoms of the British family.
This action creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized
At issue is the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, in which the former coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation of Portimão Judicial Police defended the thesis that the parents of Madeleine McCann have been involved in the disappearance and in the child's corpse concealment.
Madeleine McCann disappeared after 4 years in the tourist village of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the family was on vacation.
I think that opening sentence is possibly badly translated, and should read which matters have been proved, rather than implying (as written) that the McCanns' case (against Amaral) is proved ...
-
Mccanns not at hearing in Lisbon
I wonder why that is ?
Perhaps not confident of the outcome ?
8)--))
Neither was Amaral.
I wonder why that is ?
Perhaps not confident of the outcome ?
-
Mccanns not at hearing in Lisbon
I wonder why that is ?
Perhaps not confident of the outcome ?
8)--))
It certainly looks as if Joana Morais has absolutely no doubt about what way the Judge's review of the evidence presented to her is going to be reflected in her judgement.
I think it is probably just how much the damages which will be awarded to Madeleine's family will be ... and regrets from Dr Amaral that he didn't settle this five years ago.
-
Really, Stephen. Why should they be?
But there was no hearing today!
-
I think that opening sentence is possibly badly translated, and should read which matters have been proved, rather than implying (as written) that the McCanns' case (against Amaral) is proved ...
I think you have that spot on ferryman.
A Lisbon court is on Wednesday to reveal the facts seen as proved in a civil case in which the parents of Madeleine McCann, are suing the former police inspector who initially oversaw the investigation into the then three-year-old's disappearance from a holiday apartment in the Algarve in May 2007.
http://theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-court-to-outline-facts-proven-in-mccann-defamation-case/33737?
-
I think you have that spot on ferryman.
A Lisbon court is on Wednesday to reveal the facts seen as proved in a civil case in which the parents of Madeleine McCann, are suing the former police inspector who initially oversaw the investigation into the then three-year-old's disappearance from a holiday apartment in the Algarve in May 2007.
http://theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-court-to-outline-facts-proven-in-mccann-defamation-case/33737?
That is what I took it to mean as well.
We shall have to wait and see.
-
I understood it as “The matter of facts” that will be read today and would probably include, both proven facts of Damages caused and unproven facts of damages caused.
The result would then have to be calculated, as to damages worthy of the Damage costs, to be awarded…… possibly, being announced at a later date. IMO
We will however just have to wait and see what todays reading, really, entails.
-
Reading up, all that seems to be is that it's a session in which the judge will establish what can be considered as proven or not on both sides and the points retained on that list will be the basis of her ruling.
As the trial doesn't involve a jury, it may well be held in chambers.
-
Reading up, all that seems to be is that it's a session in which the judge will establish what can be considered as proven or not on both sides and the points retained on that list will be the basis of her ruling.
As the trial doesn't involve a jury, it may well be held in chambers.
That's what Anne Guedes said. But she will be there.
Day 14 Jan 21st 2015 for reading of proven facts.
There is a possibility that “matter of facts" that the judge decided to consider isn’t going to be read publicly.
The norm is that in a civil trial the “matter of facts” isn’t publicly read but just released to the lawyers.
Public reading of the “matter of facts” is always read in penal trials.
Anne Guedes will be at court today, Wednesday 21st January 2015 for reading of proven facts
-
In order to maintain relevancy, please use the other thread for all posts relating specifically to day 14 of the libel hearings. TY
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5927.msg213129#msg213129
-
If the McCanns were not able to EMPIRICALLY PROVE the extent of damage caused, then the case against Amaral may fail.
A sad day for Portugal, however, if it's considered fair to accuse people of criminal acts, subsequently echoed and amplified by others, particularly when the people concerned have never even been arrested, let alone charged.
In the Portuguese trials against various PJ officers, they were considered innocent until the results of the final appeals (and some even appear to have maintained their jobs in the PJ).
Whatever the outcome.... it will not mean that everything that Amaral has ever spouted was the "truth", which is no doubt how some will interpret it, conveniently substituting the putative likely results of UK libel laws (requiring proof of allegations) for PT proof of damage ones.
If the case against Amaral is dismissed, I wouldn't put any bets that accusing people based on "interpretation" of "misunderstandings" of evidence is likely to stop the floodgate of pent-up vitriol, waiting for a verdict to be announced so as to be expressed in mainstream media as "fact".
Apples and oranges. And more than a few bananas. Plus a few squirts of sour citrus fruits.
-
If the McCanns were not able to EMPIRICALLY PROVE the extent of damage caused, then the case against Amaral may fail.
A sad day for Portugal, however, if it's considered fair to accuse people of criminal acts, subsequently echoed and amplified by others, particularly when the people concerned have never even been arrested, let alone charged.
In the Portuguese trials against various PJ officers, they were considered innocent until the results of the final appeals (and some even appear to have maintained their jobs in the PJ).
Whatever the outcome.... it will not mean that everything that Amaral has ever spouted was the "truth", which is no doubt how some will interpret it, conveniently substituting the putative likely results of UK libel laws (requiring proof of allegations) for PT proof of damage ones.
If the case against Amaral is dismissed, I wouldn't put any bets that accusing people based on "interpretation" of "misunderstandings" of evidence is likely to stop the floodgate of pent-up vitriol, waiting for a verdict to be announced so as to be expressed in mainstream media as "fact".
Apples and oranges. And more than a few bananas. Plus a few squirts of sour citrus fruits.
And perhaps a huge big bunch of sour grapes ?
-
If the McCanns were not able to EMPIRICALLY PROVE the extent of damage caused, then the case against Amaral may fail.
A sad day for Portugal, however, if it's considered fair to accuse people of criminal acts, subsequently echoed and amplified by others, particularly when the people concerned have never even been arrested, let alone charged.
In the Portuguese trials against various PJ officers, they were considered innocent until the results of the final appeals (and some even appear to have maintained their jobs in the PJ).
Whatever the outcome.... it will not mean that everything that Amaral has ever spouted was the "truth", which is no doubt how some will interpret it, conveniently substituting the putative likely results of UK libel laws (requiring proof of allegations) for PT proof of damage ones.
If the case against Amaral is dismissed, I wouldn't put any bets that accusing people based on "interpretation" of "misunderstandings" of evidence is likely to stop the floodgate of pent-up vitriol, waiting for a verdict to be announced so as to be expressed in mainstream media as "fact".
Apples and oranges. And more than a few bananas. Plus a few squirts of sour citrus fruits.
I think they probably did hope in 2009 that action could be taken in London instead, where clearly it would have been a different outcome (especially with the dvd).
But all through the years people have forgotten/overlooked he isn't the only defendant in Lisbon.
-
If the McCanns were not able to EMPIRICALLY PROVE the extent of damage caused, then the case against Amaral may fail.
Do you think they proved it?
-
Do you think they proved it?
Not in terms of the extent, but whether the principle is taken into account or not.
A rather nebulous concept appears to be this "common knowledge" principle, which doesn't require empirical proof (e.g., you aren't required to prove that Wednesday is the day after Tuesday).
Whether that extends to the concept that being accused of criminal acts by a former supposed "expert" (who was clearly out of his depth) in the context of a still-missing child, in a case in which your suspect status had been lifted and thus may have gained hope concerning the renewed pursuit of the search, is more likely to increase your suffering, decrease it or cancel it out remains to be seen.
-
Not in terms of the extent, but whether the principle is taken into account or not.
A rather nebulous concept appears to be this "common knowledge" principle, which doesn't require empirical proof (e.g., you aren't required to prove that Wednesday is the day after Tuesday).
Whether that extends to the concept that being accused of criminal acts by a former supposed "expert" (who was clearly out of his depth) in the context of a still-missing child, in a case in which your suspect status had been lifted and thus may have gained hope concerning the renewed pursuit of the search, is more likely to increase your suffering, decrease it or cancel it out remains to be seen.
In the UK we're accustomed to the idea that you can't say certain things in print (or video), and probably we're so accustomed it's very odd to us that it's not the same in other countries. It's not the same in the US either. In the US it's likely his book would still be being sold in shops (assuming there's the demand to make it worthwhile for the publisher) - they don't ban books.
Different with the dvd of course. In an equivalent situation, I don't think that would ever have been shown on mainstream US television (books may not be banned, but films can effectively be denied exposure). But there would have been other documentaries with different scripts shown, far more bold than any UK ones have been.
In the UK we have no equivalent of interim police reports, and any internal documentation is never published here anyway (we've no FOI laws like US states) - GA probably couldn't have published his book without that (or it would have had to be self-published).
Do we know why the McCanns never tried to prevent broadcast of the documentary? Or did they, but the effort failed?
-
Well Dr Amaral did not libel Madeleine and the judge said it was not proven "The Book" had impeded the search.
Take 450 grand out of the equation?
-
Well Dr Amaral did not libel Madeleine and the judge said it was not proven "The Book" had impeded the search.
Take 450 grand out of the equation?
That's right...as amaral has said...the mccanns have not been able to prove all their points
-
That's right...as amaral has said...the mccanns have not been able to prove all their points
Have they proven any that will actually mean damages have to be paid ?
-
Have they proven any that will actually mean damages have to be paid ?
I would say yes
-
I would say yes
What ones ?
-
The ruling that the book caused anxiety etc...
-
The ruling that the book caused anxiety etc...
But the judge qualified that by saying the anxiety/depression existed before the book was published so the book didn't cause it.
-
But the judge qualified that by saying the anxiety/depression existed before the book was published so the book didn't cause it.
So when the judge said proven what she actually meant was not proven?
-
But the judge qualified that by saying the anxiety/depression existed before the book was published so the book didn't cause it.
Damages will be reduced because the feelings were already present...the book made them worse
-
So when the judge said proven what she actually meant was not proven?
Is that what I said ?
-
We do not know the source of the published ruling and we don't know how accurate the translation is.....what we do know is that there is no celebration by amaral...he says the judgement MAY be favourable...what exactly does that mean..we will know soon
-
We do not know the source of the published ruling and we don't know how accurate the translation is.....what we do know is that there is no celebration by amaral...he says the judgement MAY be favourable...what exactly does that mean..we will know soon
Why would Amaral celebrate ?
-
Why would Amaral celebrate ?
he would celebrate if he was having all his assets returned
-
Why would Amaral celebrate ?
Amaral will celebrate being allowed to keep as much as the judges will allow of his ill-gotten gains.
And if the judges rule that damage (from proven and established libel) is less than the McCanns are claiming, he may get to keep a sizeable wad of money.
We'll see ...
-
Is that what I said ?
Yes.
-
It might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the McCanns.
It seems to me only their own claim for about 450k is left standing, the unit of currency seems to be a movable feast and the actual value of damages if any to be ruled upon by the judge.
-
Yes.
No I was simply repeating the judge's words.
-
Amaral will celebrate being allowed to keep as much as the judges will allow of his ill-gotten gains.
And if the judges rule that damage (from proven and established libel) is less than the McCanns are claiming, he may get to keep a sizeable wad of money.
We'll see ...
I'm not at all sure that he will be master of his own finances even should the damages awarded against him be token.
During the libel trial the extent of his debts were laid bare ... there may possibly be creditors watching the progress of this action and waiting for a chance to recoup some of the money owed to them.
-
I'm not at all sure that he will be master of his own finances even should the damages awarded against him be token.
During the libel trial the extent of his debts were laid bare ... there may possibly be creditors watching the progress of this action and waiting for a chance to recoup some of the money owed to them.
Any creditors had many months to do that before the McCanns tied up Amaral's assets.
-
I'm not at all sure that he will be master of his own finances even should the damages awarded against him be token.
During the libel trial the extent of his debts were laid bare ... there may possibly be creditors watching the progress of this action and waiting for a chance to recoup some of the money owed to them.
Ah! True.
-
Any creditors had many months to do that before the McCanns tied up Amaral's assets.
And Amaral had many months to pay his debts.
-
No I was simply repeating the judge's words.
The judge said that it was proven that the book had caused damage to the McCanns - something is either proven or not proven, there is no grey area in between which is what you are insinuating. If it is proven that the book harmed the McCanns then that is that, you can't say the book caused harm but that the harm had already been caused before the book came out!
-
And Amaral had many months to pay his debts.
IIRC many of his debts were accumulated way before the McCanns had ever set foot in Portugal. But no doubt they will get the blame.
-
IIRC many of his debts were accumulated way before the McCanns had ever set foot in Portugal. But no doubt they will get the blame.
Yes from 2002, along with his first wife.
-
The judge said that it was proven that the book had caused damage to the McCanns - something is either proven or not proven, there is no grey area in between which is what you are insinuating. If it is proven that the book harmed the McCanns then that is that, you can't say the book caused harm but that the harm had already been caused before the book came out!
But that is exactly what the judge did say.
Can I suggest if you have issues with her claim you take it up with her.
-
And Amaral had many months to pay his debts.
How do you know he didn't ?
-
How do you know he didn't ?
Has he ever said he did? And why did The State nick a third of his Pension if he had?
-
But that is exactly what the judge did say.
Can I suggest if you have issues with her claim you take it up with her.
we don't know exactly what the judge said...it was in portuguese
-
But that is exactly what the judge did say.
Can I suggest if you have issues with her claim you take it up with her.
Either she's a crap judge then or her words have been mistranslated or misunderstood. Or maybe she's developed the Alan Sugar tactic of summing up his candidates prior to saying "Your Fired" - you never know til he points his finger who he's going to bin off!
-
Has he ever said he did? And why did The State nick a third of his Pension if he had?
I'm sorry but do you really believe Amaral would think it was any of our business how he managed his debts ?
-
I'm sorry but do you really believe Amaral would think it was any of our business how he managed his debts ?
Amaral opened his whole life up for scrutiny when he published his book about "The Lie".
How he manages his debts may be of great significance if the McCanns are awarded damages. Which creditors(if any) would have precedence over the McCanns when the court eventually releases his assets?
-
Amaral opened his whole life up for scrutiny when he published his book about "The Lie".
How he manages his debts may be of great significance if the McCanns are awarded damages. Which creditors(if any) would have precedence over the McCanns when the court eventually releases his assets?
One would assume you believe "Madeleine" did the same.