In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sorry but I think your post is absolute tosh

Could be, Davel

I did say I was thinking aloud

[Mr Gray]

I disagree

Amaral would certainly find it hard  ( indeed,  impossible  )   to  'prove'  his claims   ...'justifying' them, though,  is quite a different thing

He is not required  to establish,  unquestionably,  that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction,  but,  rather,   to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded,  given the information available to him

The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are  correct,  merely that  they are not groundless and insupportable

If Amaral brings witnesses  (  particularly if they are senior police professionals )  who share his opinion that the most probable  explanation for Madeleine's  disappearance is that she died in the apartment,  then it will add to the premise that he was  'justified'  in coming to the conclusions he did

Could you tell me on what basis you believe the above to be correct

[Sherlock Holmes]

I disagree

Amaral would certainly find it hard  ( indeed,  impossible  )   to  'prove'  his claims   ...'justifying' them, though,  is quite a different thing

He is not required  to establish,  unquestionably,  that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction,  but,  rather,   to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded,  given the information available to him

The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are  correct,  merely that  they are not groundless and insupportable

If Amaral brings witnesses  (  particularly if they are senior police professionals )  who share his opinion that the most probable  explanation for Madeleine's  disappearance is that she died in the apartment,  then it will add to the premise that he was  'justified'  in coming to the conclusions he did

A good way of putting it, Dr Crane.

BTW I didn't actually say that he had to 'prove' his claims, I said 'justify' . He cannot prove his claims if there is insufficient evidence. But he can try to show that he was reasonable in making his judgements given the information available.

[Redblossom]

I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine

They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.

Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.

That post makes no sense to me...if they were guilty doesnt it negate the whole claim?? I mustgo make some chips to eat now.



@Davel, OK, we will have to wait and see

[ferryman]

A good way of putting it, Dr Crane.

I didn't actually say that he had to 'prove' his claims, I said 'justify' . He cannot prove his claims if there is insufficient evidence. But he can try to show that he was reasonable in making his judgements given the information he had.

Emphasis on the word try

How can he justify not reading John L:owe's report.

Will Stuart Prior's report justify his claim that he knows better than Stuart Prior about forensics?

Or that Prior was humbled (and rattled) into phoning the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

How will he bluff his way out contradicting the final PJ report which says Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?

[Sherlock Holmes]

That post makes no sense to me...if they were guilty doesnt it negate the whole claim?? I mustgo make some chips to eat now.



@Davel, OK, we will have to wait and see

It's a very pedantic point but I think it's correct.

No official conclusion exists as to what happened to Madeleine and who is and is not guilty. There is absolutely no way that this particular court can work out what has happened, and it does not seek to. That is a matter for formal investigators and a criminal court.

The remit of this court is only to assess the extent of the emotional damage caused to the McCanns by Amaral's book, and the damage done to the search.

We do not necessarily need to know the outcome of the investigation to know that. We may never get as far as nailing a guilty party even if there is a 'conclusion' to the investigation.

If  concrete knowledge of the guilty party was a prerequisite for this libel case, the McCanns would have been advised not to take Amaral to court.

[Luz]

I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine

They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.

Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.

BINGO.

In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses.
When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.

[ferryman]

BINGO.

In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses.
When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.

What was the basis of Murat's victory against Correia de Manaha?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Emphasis on the word try

How can he justify not reading John L:owe's report.

Will Stuart Prior's report justify his claim that he knows better than Stuart Prior about forensics?

Or that Prior was humbled (and rattled) into phoning the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

How will he bluff his way out contradicting the final PJ report which says Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?

He is going to have a hard time merely 'justifying' his thesis, far less 'proving' what he claims happened.

[Mr Gray]

BINGO.

In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses.
When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.

Point is LUZ,
You have already shown that you don't have a  clue regarding the law in Portugal so I wont be taking any notice of what you say

[Luz]

A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court.
It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.

[Mr Gray]

A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court.
It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.

I actually feel a little sorry for you..you don't have  aclue do you

[Sherlock Holmes]

What was the basis of Murat's victory against Correia de Manaha?

Good question, I would be interested to know also

[Luz]

I remember that in March, this year, 2013, a claim against a journalist that wrote a book "Blood Diamonds: torture and corruption in Angola", by the generals that were directly accused in that book, was immediately dismissed, because in Portugal prevails the freedom of thinking and expression. Let's see if the McCann can corrupt that consecrated principle of our Constitution.

[Mr Gray]

A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court.
It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.

perhaps you should read the following, written by a solicitor

REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a  lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech).