McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel case - Witnesses

[Mr Gray]

So far,  McCann witnesses have attested to the 'distress'  caused to the McCanns  by Amaral's book

I'm sure that is true ...   of course the book will have distressed them

Distressing isn't the same as libelous though is it  ?   (   the truth can be distressing too, afterall ) 

What witnesses do they have who will give evidence that  proves  what Amaral wrote  is untrue  ?

(  anyone know is on their list of witnesses   ?  )

Im sorry to say that your lack of response shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about..

[sika]

Good. They all can testify how happy Kate and Gerald were to attend Media sessions and to be finally the center of attention of a world of people.

In fact Mrs McCann put on weight during the first months after the child disappeared, she became more self conscious about her image, caring for herself about clothes, make up, hairdresser...she really looked rejuvenated. And that kept on for the following years.
Now she looks like crap, indeed, but that has nothing to do with a book that was published more than 5 years ago.

Jesus! You are vile!

[icabodcrane]

Im sorry to say that your lack of response shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about..

I have replied davel  (  see above  )

I simply don't understand what you are asking  ...  could you put it into sentences rather than just disjointed words  ?   

thanks

[Redblossom]

    martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt   26m
#madeleine Kate McCann about to make statement at end of first day of Lisbon libel action against ex-cop and TV documentary makers.
View details ·   
    martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt   59m
#madeleine Loach: McCanns have to monitor Internet use of twins Seam and Amelie to stop them finding out about book and Port TV documentary.
View details ·   

Their eight yr olds are let loose on the internet?

[Redblossom]

No surprises so far. As the Bureau said a while ago [Not like the Good Old Days, February 2012, McCann files] the list of witnesses for the McCanns indicates that Duarte is concentrating on putting forward an emotion-based, rather than fact-based, case. And proceedings today followed that forecast as if we’d written the script for them eighteen months ago.

Snip

Whether it will be successful I have no idea: waves of emotion, rather than truth, have carried the couple along so far, just like that other well-capitalised and successful manufactured product of Messrs Kennedy, Smethurst and others, double-glazing. Both products have been subject to similar reservations over the years – that they are plastic, see-through, heavily oversold to the proletariat and won’t last long but they also share the valuable quality that dirt, and particularly Grime, don’t stick to them at all.


The risk, of course, is that the defence won’t waste time trying to convince the court that the photos and endless celebrity interviews of the couple show a severe shortage of the dreadful suffering that the writ alleges Amaral caused them, but will concentrate on the evidence that other police officer accumulated and the reasonable inferences that could, and should, have been drawn by Amaral or any other co-ordinator.  I doubt if people like Mother Hubbard will be much use in refuting such points.

Snip

Exactly!

http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/

[Mr Gray]

I don't understand what your post means

you say the McCanns have to prove amaral wrong
I ask you what level of proof they have to provide
Do you understand there are different degrees... levels of proof
I ask...what level of proof do the McCanns have to provide

[Mr Gray]

No surprises so far. As the Bureau said a while ago [Not like the Good Old Days, February 2012, McCann files] the list of witnesses for the McCanns indicates that Duarte is concentrating on putting forward an emotion-based, rather than fact-based, case. And proceedings today followed that forecast as if we’d written the script for them eighteen months ago.

Snip

Whether it will be successful I have no idea: waves of emotion, rather than truth, have carried the couple along so far, just like that other well-capitalised and successful manufactured product of Messrs Kennedy, Smethurst and others, double-glazing. Both products have been subject to similar reservations over the years – that they are plastic, see-through, heavily oversold to the proletariat and won’t last long but they also share the valuable quality that dirt, and particularly Grime, don’t stick to them at all.


The risk, of course, is that the defence won’t waste time trying to convince the court that the photos and endless celebrity interviews of the couple show a severe shortage of the dreadful suffering that the writ alleges Amaral caused them, but will concentrate on the evidence that other police officer accumulated and the reasonable inferences that could, and should, have been drawn by Amaral or any other co-ordinator.  I doubt if people like Mother Hubbard will be much use in refuting such points.

Snip

Exactly!

http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/

Well hes going to struggle their seeing as the final report says there is no evidence against the McCanns

[Redblossom]

Well hes going to struggle their seeing as the final report says there is no evidence against the McCanns

Simplistic assumption dear davel, dont forget the appellant court ruling!!! Told you a couple days ago libel trial is based on the book, book has been given all clear by higher court, so....no leg to stand on IMHO of course,catch you later on

[Mr Gray]

Simplistic assumption dear davel, dont forget the appellant court ruling!!! Told you a couple days ago libel trial is based on the book, book has been given all clear by higher court, so....no leg to stand on IMHO of course,catch you later on

The hearing was exparte..its a whole new ball game now imo

[icabodcrane]

you say the McCanns have to prove amaral wrong
I ask you what level of proof they have to provide
Do you understand there are different degrees... levels of proof
I ask...what level of proof do the McCanns have to provide

I don't know what you mean by  'levels of proof'

To put it quite simply

Amaral believes that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents staged an abduction to cover up the death

He has written a book saying the same

The McCanns say that it is not true that Madeleine died in the apartment and that they staged an abduction to cover up the death

They say that because what Amaral claims is untrue he has libeled them

In order to  'prove'  that what Amaral says is untrue  (  and therefore  libelous )   they need  to prove that Madeleine did  NOT  die in the apartment,  and  to prove that they did  NOT  stage  an abduction

What  witnesses/evidence   can they produce to  prove that  ? 

I'm thinking perhaps that is why Dave Edgar is there  ... to  present his theory that Madeleine is still alive and his reasoning behind it  ...  what do you think  ?  ) 

[Lyall]

Well hes going to struggle their seeing as the final report says there is no evidence against the McCanns

Yes but it also indicates no evidence for their claim about what happened to Madeleine either. G McCann says this himself in the first of Loach's films. "No hard facts to go on other than what we knew on the night really".

I don't envy the Lisbon judges. Tough job.

[Mr Gray]

I don't know what you mean by  'levels of proof'

To put it quite simply

Amaral believes that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents staged an abduction to cover up the death

He has written a book saying the same

The McCanns say that it is not true that Madeleine died in the apartment and that they staged an abduction to cover up the death

They say that because what Amaral claims is untrue he has libeled them

In order to  'prove'  that what Amaral says is untrue  (  and therefore  libelous )   they need  to prove that Madeleine did  NOT  die in the apartment,  and  to prove that they did  NOT  stage  an abduction

What  witnesses/evidence   can they produce to  prove that  ? 

I'm thinking perhaps that is why Dave Edgar is there  ... to  present his theory that Madeleine is still alive and his reasoning behind it  ...  what do you think  ?  )

I don't know what you mean by  'levels of proof'....levels of proof is a basic concept in law...perhaps you should try google.
Without defing what level of proof the Mccanns the need to demonstrate you ask a question that is vague and impossible to answer

[Mr Gray]

Yes but it also indicates no evidence for their claim about what happened to Madeleine either. G McCann says this himself in the first of Loach's films. "No hard facts to go on other than what we knew on the night really".

I don't envy the Lisbon judges. Tough job.

it is Blacksmith who talks of  evidence when you admit there is none. That's why I think blacksmith is an idiot

[Mr Gray]

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The burden of proof placed on a party in certain types of civil cases, such as cases involving fraud. Clear and convincing is a higher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," the standard typical in most civil cases, but not as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt," the burden placed on the prosecution in criminal cases.

Some examples of different levels of evidence.

[Luz]

it is Blacksmith who talks of  evidence when you admit there is none. That's why I think blacksmith is an idiot

You think wrong.

There is evidence about many things.