Did McCanns make the wrong decision to allow media reporting at the libel trial?

[John]

It is somewhat enlightening editing the transcripts from the McCann v Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel trial in Lisbon.  I cannot help from wondering however if the family make the right decision to allow it all to be publicised.

Given the emotional trauma which Kate has already experienced following the loss (however caused) of Madeleine and the subsequent investigation etc was she wise to attend Lisbon at this time?

Should they not have joined with Dr Amaral and opted for no Press reporting?

[Rachel Granada]

It is somewhat enlightening editing the transcripts from the McCann v Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel trial in Lisbon.  I cannot help from wondering however if the family make the right decision to allow it all to be publicised.

Given the emotional trauma which Kate has already experienced following the loss (however caused) of Madeleine and the subsequent investigation etc was she wise to attend Lisbon at this time?

Should they not have joined with Dr Amaral and opted for no Press reporting?

I think they did the right thing, John.  If only to shed light on the damage and hurt caused by foul sites like the 3As. That needed to be brought into the public domain, if only to make people think in future about the potential distress their nasty posts may cause.

I'll turn the question on its head.  I wonder why Amaral wanted to exclude the press? 

[ferryman]

Is it clear that the McCanns had a say in the matter?

Or is it the case that open proceedings would be the usual protocol and Santos asked for special dispensation for proceedings in camera (lest Madeleine be alive)?

If the second, it would have been a decision of the judges to turn down the request for proceedings in camera.

[Rachel Granada]

Is it clear that the McCanns had a say in the matter?

Or is it the case that open proceedings would be the usual protocol and Santos asked for special dispensation for proceedings in camera (lest Madeleine be alive)?

If the second, it would have been a decision of the judges to turn down the request for proceedings in camera.

Oh yes, that's a thought ferryman.  We don't know if they had a say.   I think it would be interesting to explore just why Amaral wanted the press excluded.  Would this need a separate thread, John?


Done

[John]

As plaintiffs the McCanns would have had the option whether to proceed with the Press present in Court or not.  They also had the option to request that the tribunal continue as a 'Closed Court' which would have meant only the participants would have been allowed in.

[ferryman]

As plaintiffs the McCanns would have had the option whether to proceed with the Press present in Court or not.  They also had the option to request that the tribunal continue as a 'Closed Court' which would have meant only the participants would have been allowed in.

Are you sure about that?

[John]

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.

[drummer]

Wonder what would've have been said if it was the Mccanns who requested to disallow media reporting?

[gilet]

Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.

Do you actually have some training in Portuguese law or are you just waffling?
Please offer some proof of this claim.

[gilet]

Wonder what would've have been said if it was the Mccanns who requested to disallow media reporting?

The issue of freedom of speech and openness would have been raised loudly by the Amaral supporters. However when Amaral himself is trying to hide the proceedings from the public this does not raise their hackles. Appalling hypocrisy in my opinion.

[gilet]

Fact  remains the Mccanns wanted the press publicity, says it all, from the horses mouth..they OPPOSED Amarals request for case to be heard in camera...

Of course they wanted the publicity. Why would they want the exposure of Amaral's libel and gross abuse of his position to be kept secret?

It was in Portugal where Amaral's lies did the damage so his defence (or lack of defence) of those lies should be openly seen in that country.

For Amaral and Morais (who have ranted about freedom of speech for so long) to have hypocritically chosen this moment to want to hide the facts from the public (on the grounds according to Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine may be alive) is pathetic in the extreme.

[gilet]

Of course they wanted the publicity. Why would they want the exposure of Amaral's libel and gross abuse of his position to be kept secret?

It was in Portugal where Amaral's lies did the damage so his defence (or lack of defence) of those lies should be openly seen in that country.

For Amaral and Morais (who have ranted about freedom of speech for so long) to have hypocritically chosen this moment to want to hide the facts from the public (on the grounds according to Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine may be alive) is pathetic in the extreme.

May I ask you to explain what editing of my post has been done by moderators?

[John]

Do you actually have some training in Portuguese law or are you just waffling?
Please offer some proof of this claim.

The Judge has been very clear on these side issues, if all parties concur she would agree to their requests.  I wonder if Isabel took the position she did just to be awkward?

Nice to see you back, do try and get the quote box right next time eh?

[AnneGuedes]

Absolutely, had the parties all agreed to this the Judge would have allowed it.

I agree. The judge, when asked to request the documents referred to by Claudia Nogueira, said she didn't see much interest in them, but agreed because all parties agreed.
Apart from the accusation and defence's wishes, the Judge could have considered the audience's presence for some reason was counterproductive in this judgement and sent everybody home.

[AnneGuedes]

Fact  remains the Mccanns wanted the press publicity, says it all, from the horses mouth..

One more time they revealed a total lack of imagination that could be the origin of what happened to Madeleine.
But perhaps they don't sell newspapers in Rothley.