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

[Chinagirl]

The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body.  But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.

[stephen25000]

The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body.  But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.

So who is stopping any 'search' exactly ?

[John]

The McCanns can't possibly "prove" that she is alive, nor can Amaralprove she is dead, as there is no body.  But as there is no proof of death, and as she is a human being not just a missing cat, then the possibility, no matter how slim, that she could be alive HAS to be considered as the priority.

A priority after six years?  Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?

[carlymichelle]

A priority after six years?  Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?

good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing

[stephen25000]

good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing

The crux of the matter has been this.

If they new Madeleine had a fatal accident and it was covered up, they would face severe criminal charges.

Likewise the setting up of the fund would be FRAUD.

[Benita]

good point what if they are spending all the money for nothing

god forbid you ever have a child go missing

[ferryman]

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.

I've read these exchanges with interest.  I should stress, I am no lawyer and Jean Pierre is the one who could write authoritatively on this subject.

But it does seem that there are variations.  In England, there is no separate and discrete requirement to establish damage, only to establish that statements that are untrue or (UK) not proved true, also lower reputation. 

There can also be libel arising from statements that require special knowledge.

It wouldn't ordinarily be libel to congratulate someone on being pregnant, even if untrue.  But if the woman is single and has a reputation for preaching the virtues of chastity and against sex before marriage, the statement would be libel

And truthful statements that are not placed in context can also be libel. 

If you say that someone was tried for the crime of burglary (and that is true) you can be guilty of libel if you don't add (assuming that to be the case) that they were acquitted, because people might think that the charge remains unresolved.

All that is English law.

From proceedings in Portugal, and judging by the way Isabel Duarte has structured her case, there does seem to be a separate and distinct requirement to establish damage.

That seems to be why Isabel has begun by seeking to establish that Kate was driven to a point of near suicide by the course of events.

[Chinagirl]

A priority after six years?  Is it not a bit late to be speaking of priority and spending £millions on a ghost?

What a cynical comment!  We're speaking of a stolen child who has not yet proven to be a ghost.  No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.

I have just heard an item of news here where the police are offering a very large reward for information about a schoolgirl who went missing in 1979 - 34 years ago, yet still taxpayers' money and police effort are being used to find her, or what happened to her.

[AnneGuedes]

That seems to be why Isabel has begun by seeking to establish that Kate was driven to a point of near suicide by the course of events.

Hearsay. A man, who is not a psychologist, reported she told him she considered suicide as an option. Only an expert could state whether she "was driven to a point of near suicide" and why.

[ferryman]

Hearsay. A man, who is not a psychologist, reported she told him she considered suicide as an option. Only an expert could state whether she "was driven to a point of near suicide" and why.

What information do you have about the credentials of this man?

[AnneGuedes]

No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.

I do agree, but first let's clear the situation, starting with the reconstruction. Why should the AG report be bypassed ?

[stephen25000]

What a cynical comment!  We're speaking of a stolen child who has not yet proven to be a ghost.  No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.

I have just heard an item of news here where the police are offering a very large reward for information about a schoolgirl who went missing in 1979 - 34 years ago, yet still taxpayers' money and police effort are being used to find her, or what happened to her.

'No matter what the cost or how long it takes the search for her should continue until she is found, or what happened to her is ascertained.'

By that logic, all missing children should have the same amount of money,time and resources spent on them.Do you agree ?

and do you have any idea of how much that would cost the UK taxpayer ?

[AnneGuedes]

What information do you have about the credentials of this man?

I know what he declared to the court. You surely have read that.
Are you a psychologist ?
No.

[gilet]

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.

Those tabloid headlines refer to a period in the past. The situation has no doubt been dealt with by the police and the parents can explain that to the children. They can also explain that it is the allegations of Amaral which may well have provoked such threats by inferring the guilt of the parents.

But the continued pushing by Amaral of his theory (yes thats all it is, an error-filled theory) that the parents were involved in some kind of cover-up may be the catalyst for further threats. It is to prevent that as well as to prevent the further damage to the search for Madeleine that would have persuaded the McCanns that the difficult balance of judgement lay in the route they have taken.

[gilet]

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.

At no point did I suggest there were such people here. I do suggest that you take a course in reading English if that is the conclusion you come to from reading my post.

And I simply do not believe that you have never "crossed" these people. I presume you have garbled the English again and mean "come across" rather than "crossed" which implies 'angered'.

Having seen your interactions with others on twitter I can see that these people are far closer acquaintances of yours though, than they will ever be of mine.