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

[gilet]

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.

No, there was no lack of imagination. There was a carefully balanced judgement whether the benefit of the lies of Amaral being exposed as such to the Portuguese public and the subsequent possible boost to any search effort against the detrimental effect of his lies being exposed in the UK press.

Should the case go in the McCann's favour as they, of course, hope and trust then there is no damage. The lies of the man are shown to be what they are. Should the McCanns lose then the thesis with no proof of death will continue to be peddled by Amaral for profit.

But the reality is that whichever way the trial in Lisbon goes the worst of the sad people who hound the family will continue to do so. Those people who post hideously grotesque images and post vile threats and lies will not stop just because Amaral has been found guilty. They are too entrenched in the hate to do that. The reality is that there are people who will forever deliberately target the McCann family and the twins no matter what  happens. Those people will never care about the damage they personally do to the twins because their need to hate overrides such niceties.

[faithlilly]

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.

And the effect of those lurid tabloid headlines on the twins ? What matters more to the McCanns, the public exposure of Amaral ( if that's what it is ) or their children's right to feel safe and secure ? It really is that simple.

[AnneGuedes]

Those people who post hideously grotesque images and post vile threats and lies will not stop just because Amaral has been found guilty. They are too entrenched in the hate to do that. The reality is that there are people who will forever deliberately target the McCann family and the twins no matter what  happens. Those people will never care about the damage they personally do to the twins because their need to hate overrides such niceties.

There's no such person here, you're taking this forum for what it is not. I can't orientate you though, I never crossed these acquaintances of yours.

[icabodcrane]

No, there was no lack of imagination. There was a carefully balanced judgement whether the benefit of the lies of Amaral being exposed as such to the Portuguese public and the subsequent possible boost to any search effort against the detrimental effect of his lies being exposed in the UK press.

I have been following the case as closely as others here  (  with the added benefit  of Anne's reports from court  )

Have I missed something perhaps ?  ...  what  'lies'  that Amaral told have been  'exposed'  during this court case  ? 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have been following the case as closely as others here  (  with the added benefit  of Anne's reports from court  )

Have I missed something perhaps ?  ...  what  'lies'  that Amaral told have been  'exposed'  during this court case  ?

I also fail to note exposure of any lies.. so far..

[icabodcrane]

I also fail to note exposure of any lies.. so far..

The first five days of this  trial have been totally devoted to the  McCanns making their case   ...  how many witnesses have they produced  ?  ...  10  ?

I was under the impression that it was necessary for them to first establish that the book had  'libeled'  them,  and then proceed with establishing how much damage the libel had caused 

As far as I can see though,  the first five days  (  and the  McCann witnesses  )  have  'only'  presented the case for damage caused by the book,  without establishing if it is libelous in any way 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The first five days of this  trial have been totally devoted to the  McCanns making their case   ...  how many witnesses have they produced  ?  ...  10  ?

I was under the impression that it was necessary for them to first establish that the book had  'libeled'  them,  and then proceed with establishing how much damage the libel had caused 

As far as I can see though,  the first five days  (  and the  McCann witnesses  )  have  'only'  presented the case for damage caused by the book,  without establishing if it is libelous in any way

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

I'm no lawyer, Icabod, but it seems that the issues of damage caused and libel itself are closely related, if not one and the same thing in law. The above is only a general definition, and does not reflect Portuguese law specifically, but the point  -as far as I understand it - is that something libelous, by definition, causes harm. (Conversely, a statement about someone that is incorrect but does not cause harm would not be defined as libel).

[icabodcrane]

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

I'm no lawyer, Icabod, but it seems that the issues of damage caused and libel itself are closely related, if not one and the same thing in law. The above is only a general definition, and does not reflect Portuguese law specifically, but the point  -as far as I understand it - is that something libelous, by definition, causes harm. (Conversely, a statement about someone that is incorrect but does not cause harm would not be defined as libel).

I'm confused Sherlock  ...  are you saying that  regardless  of whether was is written  is truthful and accurate,  it will be considered libel by virtue of the fact it caused damage  ?   

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm confused Sherlock  ...  are you saying that  regardless  of whether was is written  is truthful and accurate,  it will be considered libel by virtue of the fact it caused damage  ?

Almost...

Libel is a published untruth. The libeler's untruths themselves are considered to constitute damage to the person being libeled.

In other words,  after having established untruths, one need not go on to establish that damage was caused - merely in issuing a libelous statement, damage is considered to have been done.

At least this is what I understand from the 'dictionary definition'. Perhaps a lawyer could clarify here.

Having said that, in this case there is a complication, namely that the McCanns aren't only claiming damage to their personal reputations, but damage to the search, an additional point that is not a matter of logic or jurisprudence, but, presumably, a matter of establishing further facts.

[icabodcrane]

Almost...

Libel is a published untruth. The libeler's untruths themselves are considered to constitute damage to the person being libeled.

In other words,  after having established untruths, one need not go on to establish that damage was caused - merely in issuing a libelous statement, damage is considered to have been done.

At least this is what I understand from the 'dictionary definition'. Perhaps a lawyer could clarify here.

Having said that, in this case there is a complication, namely that the McCanns aren't only claiming damage to their personal reputations, but damage to the search, an additional point that is not a matter of logic or jurisprudence, but, presumably, a matter of establishing further facts.

So then,  it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has  'damaged'  them  ?  ...  they will need  to establish that it  'damaged'  them because it was libelous   (  false in it's assertions  )  ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So then,  it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has  'damaged'  them  ?  ...  they will need  to establish that it  'damaged'  them because it was libelous   (  false in it's assertions  )  ?

As far as I understand, in theory, yes.  Libel, or defamation, is by definition a false statement.

Saying something true about a person that happens to damage them - 'he is very fat', when he is in fact very fat, is not libel, despite the fact it could be damaging. You have to demonstrate that what has been said is false - 'he committed adultery' , when in fact he didn't.

But again, how exactly this works in court, presumably only a lawyer can say.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral  has made untrue claims.

Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?

As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.

How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?

[icabodcrane]

Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral  has made untrue claims.

Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?

As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.

How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?

Thanks Sherlock  (  it's nice to have another night-owl on the board  ) 

I have no idea how much of Amaral's book they have to prove is false  for libel to be established

The thing that has struck me though,  is that in five days of presenting their case and witnesses  the McCann lawyer has not pointed to  ANYTHING   written in the book and proved it to be false   ...  not a single sentence ! 

[Admin]

So then,  it will not be sufficient for the McCanns to establish that the book has  'damaged'  them  ?  ...  they will need  to establish that it  'damaged'  them because it was libelous   (  false in it's assertions  )  ?

In a word yes.  You cannot libel or defame someone with the truth no matter how bad it is.  The libel has to be in the lie.

[Admin]

Something I am confused about is the extent to which the McCanns have to show that Amaral  has made untrue claims.

Do they have to show that the book's main thrust and conclusions are false, or only that certain specific statements contained within the book are wrong?

As we have discussed before, it is presumably impossible for the McCanns to demonstrate that Amaral's conclusions are false - at least in Judge Maria Emilia's courtroom - as no verdict yet exists on what has happened to Madeleine.

How much of Amaral's book do they have to prove is false before they can show that he has libeled them?

Reading between the lines the main thrust appears to be the claim that the Amaral book damaged the search for Madeleine by making claim that she is dead.  In order to counter this the McCanns have to prove that she is alive.