Why Aren't the McCanns Giving Evidence at their Libel Trial ?

[Mr Gray]

Youre entitled to your opinions and what his lawyer said amounts to nothing in the circumstances...no one has ever said they KNOW Madeleine is dead.....so that argument falls at the first hurdle

would you like to reconsider this statement?

[Redblossom]

would you like to reconsider this statement?

No not really but you carry on, be back later
 

[Mr Gray]

So what?
 

SINCE WHEN has it been a crime for policemen to formulate theories, too funny, I suppose they should have just believed what the mccanns told them, LooooL, catch you later!

Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book

[icabodcrane]

Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book

His book was called  'The Truth of the Lie'  was it not   ?

The  'Lie'  he is refering to,  I presume,  is that the missing child was abducted

He claims the McCanns lied when they said  their daughter had been abducted,  in the same way the McCanns claim that Amaral lied when he said she died in the apartment

No-one knows which claim is truthful

Amaral came to the conclusion   that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and that her parents covered it up by staging an abduction.  That is his opinion,  and it  was shared by other senior police officers 

The Portuguese constitution allows for opinion to be expressed,  and Amaral has used his constitutional right to freedom of expression by writing a book

That is the basis of his defense ...  a defense which has already been recognised by the Supreme Court which reversed the injunction on his book   

[Mr Gray]

His book was called  'The Truth of the Lie'  was it not   ?

The  'Lie'  he is refering to,  I presume,  is that the missing child was abducted

He claims the McCanns lied when they said  their daughter had been abducted,  in the same way the McCanns claim that Amaral lied when he said she died in the apartment

No-one knows which claim is truthful

All correct up to now

Amaral came to the conclusion   that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and that her parents covered it up by staging an abduction.  That is his opinion,  and it  was shared by other senior police officers 

Red has said that no one has said Maddie was dead so thanks for proving her wrong

The Portuguese constitution allows for opinion to be expressed,  and Amaral has used his constitutional right to freedom of expression by writing a book

That is the basis of his defense ...  a defense which has already been recognised by the Supreme Court which reversed the injunction on his book

This was only an interim judgement and is not binding on this court   

So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal

[Mr Gray]

 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?

Quote from an ex uk solicitor

[icabodcrane]

So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal

You appear to misunderstand Portuguese libel  law  Davel

Amaral does not have to prove that he did not libel  the McCanns

The McCanns have to prove that  he  DID

The onus is on them to provide proof

As far as I can see,  they have not done that with any of the witnesses  produced so far   (  who have spoken only of the emotional  distress Amaral's book caused the McCanns ) 

[Mr Gray]

You appear to misunderstand Portuguese libel  law  Davel

Amaral does not have to prove that he did not libel  the McCanns

The McCanns have to prove that  he  DID

The onus is on them to provide proof

As far as I can see,  they have not done that with any of the witnesses  produced so far   (  who have spoken only of the emotional  distress Amaral's book caused the McCanns )

I do understand Portuguese law

we have had this same conversation in the last week..remember

WHAT LEVEL OF PROOF DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE...YOU DONT KNOW

[icabodcrane]

I do understand Portuguese law

we have had this same conversation in the last week..remember

WHAT LEVEL OF PROOF DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE...YOU DONT KNOW

Yes, yes  ...  but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not  'prove'  what he had written

Do you accept that he does not  have  to prove it  in order to win this libel case      ...  and  that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance  ?    (  whatever  'level'  of proof that may be  )   

[Redblossom]

So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal

Embedded post withtn above post timed

Red has said that no one has said Maddie was dead so thanks for proving her wrong
Pls dont msquote me thanks, my post number 42 said no such thing

[Redblossom]

Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book

no not really

[Redblossom]

Yes, yes  ...  but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not  'prove'  what he had written

Do you accept that he does not  have  to prove it  in order to win this libel case      ...  and  that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance  ?    (  whatever  'level'  of proof that may be  )

Exactly, if no one knows the truth then no one can be sued, for sayng they believe x y z is the truth, or most likely etc, elementary, the mccanns just CANT prove they have been libelled, its a dead horse from day one

IMO they will be sent away with a flea in their ear like last time and told to grow up and not be greedy or vexatious

[Mr Gray]

Yes, yes  ...  but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not  'prove'  what he had written

Do you accept that he does not  have  to prove it  in order to win this libel case      ...  and  that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance  ?    (  whatever  'level'  of proof that may be  )

this is what I have been led to believe but where did you get this idea from,, I don't know for a fact what is true..do you

[Mr Gray]

Exactly, if no one knows the truth then no one can be sued, for sayng they believe x y z is the truth, or most likely etc, elementary, the mccanns just CANT prove they have been libelled, its a dead horse from day one

IMO they will be sent away with a flea in their ear like last time and told to grow up and not be greedy or vexatious

This certainly is not true in the uk could you tell me why you are so sure it is true in portugal

[Redblossom]

This certainly is not true in the uk could you tell me why you are so sure it is true in portugal

Honestly held opinions in both countries are a defence...end of, now take it up with lawyers as ita in their hands not yours or mine