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

[icabodcrane]

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

To tell the truth davel,  no,  I don't know it for a fact

I was lead to believe our fellow member Jean Pierre is something of an expert on Portuguese law,  and was going by what he has said  with regard to Libel laws there

Perhaps he can confirm  ? 

[Mr Gray]

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

You are mistaken, Bennett tried this and was laughed out of court. I don't know what the law is in Portugal and it seems like you don't either yet you post as if you do

[Redblossom]

You are mistaken, Bennett tried this and was laughed out of court. I don't know what the law is in Portugal and it seems like you don't either yet you post as if you do

Dontt know anything about Bennett trial

As for  PT law no dont know it either and dont pretend to do but I have read one case decision there where exactly that was given as a defence......thats all!

[Mr Gray]

To tell the truth davel,  no,  I don't know it for a fact

I was lead to believe our fellow member Jean Pierre is something of an expert on Portuguese law,  and was going by what he has said  with regard to Libel laws there

Perhaps he can confirm  ?

I wish someone could confirm, but at least hopefully we will all know in a few weeks.

[Luz]

I seems there is a big confusion about the trial case being discussed here.

This is a civil trial case where the claimants are trying to be compensated for damages caused by the publication of a book, TV commentary and CD, according to the  Civil Code on civil responsibility - where damages caused even when there was no intent must be compensated if there is proof of a nexus of causality between the fact (event) and the damages substantially/irrefutably proved.

Any compensation for defamation implies a previous conviction that the crime was committed. In this case such crime  was not committed according to the Relation and Supreme Court's rulings.

So, this is not if the contents of the book is true or false, defaming or not, but if its publication, even within all the legal rights of freedom of expression, caused any harm and the amount and type of such damage, if any.

[drummer]

So now we know the Mccann's were not giving evidence because they weren't allowed to. Thought a Portuguese poster might have verified this earlier then there would've been no need for all the speculation.

Anyone know if Amaral is going to give evidence?

[DCI]

So now we know the Mccann's were not giving evidence because they weren't allowed to. Thought a Portuguese poster might have verified this earlier then there would've been no need for all the speculation.

Anyone know if Amaral is going to give evidence?

He should be made to, he made the accusations. Anyway his ace hasn't been played yet, has it? Raised eyebrows!

[LagosBen]

My sentiments precisely.  How can someone claim defamation if they don't even give evidence on their own behalf??  Really weird imo

Weirder still, that both Kate and Gerry haven't -so far, been allowed to speak. >@@(*&)

[Luz]

Weirder still, that both Kate and Gerry haven't -so far, been allowed to speak. >@@(*&)

How do you know they weren't allowed?
They hadn't requested before to be heard, according to their witnesses list.
Now Mr. McCann woke up and suddenly wants to testify. I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.

[AnneGuedes]

I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.

I think the Court will, the question is will the defence agree ? I hope so.

[Luz]

He should be made to, he made the accusations. Anyway his ace hasn't been played yet, has it? Raised eyebrows!

You must be seeing another movie. It's the McCann that are the plaintiffs.

According to our law, Amaral didn't even need to be present at the Court, as the McCann didn't. The last ones only had to produce proof about their allegations. It's the McCann that have to prove, objectively and behind doubt, that their allegations are true.

[Mr Gray]

How do you know they weren't allowed?
They hadn't requested before to be heard, according to their witnesses list.
Now Mr. McCann woke up and suddenly wants to testify. I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.

there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.

[DCI]

there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.

Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?

[Mr Gray]

Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?

quite possible but it will show an awful lack of confidence from amaral....seeing his supporters have claimed that the McCanns would never go in the witness box

[Luz]

there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.

Exactly. And let's hope that Mr. and Mrs. McCann are allowed to be heard in Court, even though the law has changed after the case has been submitted.

It feels nice that finally we agree on something.