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

[gilet]

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.

I do not believe that is the case. They merely have to prove that she is possibly alive. And they could use the Files for that where it is clear in the archival report that is a possibility (however slight).

Amaral is claiming definitively in his book and in various appearances that she is dead. That simply is not a fact. It is perfectly possible that she is alive. I believe the statement of his lawyer to that very effect last week is a clear sign that Amaral is trying to step back from the claims he has previously made about death being a fact.

[gilet]

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

What an interesting post?
Till Madeleine is proven to be dead I will consider her to be a child not a ghost. I acknowledge that the possibility of her being alive is slim but unlike others I will not crudely consign her to the earth in my mind without proof.

[gilet]

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.

What a pathetic but unsurprising summary?

That you and others can make the claim that those aspects are the crux of the matter demonstrates a great deal.

You are simply wrong.

The crux of the matter is Madeleine McCann, who at an incredibly vulnerable age went missing six years ago.

Your words reflect the priority of Amaral who did not seem to see this as the crux of the matter. Like you his focus was entirely on the parents and their actions.

You make no allowance for the other side of your question, if they knew (sic) no such thing. You are simply presuming as Amaral did that they did know.

But the reality is that if they did not know, then like him and all others who have accused this couple and harangued them, mocked them, accused them etc you have been part of one of the .........t pieces of harassment ever witnessed.

And the problem you have, just as Amaral has, is that you are just guessing that they are guilty. He has no proof of that. You have no proof of that. All the nastiness and hate directed at the McCanns is based on guesswork, nothing more, nothing less.

[Lyall]

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.

That's high quality spin gilet, but a fairer alternative view is that a combination of the lurid newspaper headlines of 2007/8 and the McCann's own actions and decisions (e.g. Mitchell's 'Cooperman' press conference) led to the conspiracy theories and extremism in some places, not Mr Amaral's book.

This wave was at its peak in September 07 - nine months or so before publication of Mr Amaral's book.

[gilet]

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.

Rather like those people who claim to be experts on scientific committees and claim to be able to advise people on matters related to sudden death but who are in fact not scientists at all.

I don't agree with you by the way. Having known someone for many years (a former colleague) who was "driven to a point of near suicide", having been with that person after one of her two serious suicide attempts, I feel perfectly capable of describing that fact and explaining why she was driven to do what she did. Thankfully she is no longer in those dark places and is working again very effectively but I am more than able to describe to any judge or jury the reasons for her actions and the depths of despair she was in. And I do not claim to be an expert.

Your clear attempt to rubbish the testimony of Alan Pike is not washing with me, I am afraid.

[gilet]

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

Perhaps you are unaware or the Portuguese police do not have computer simulated reconstructions.  They are used by police in the UK to analyse ALL possible patterns of behaviour, actions, reactions, timings etc in a given scenario. They collate all the statements, timings and possibilities to determine the most likely sequence of events. It is highly likely that SY have used such a simulation of the scenario during their review/inquiry.

Full scale reconstructions are now largely for the purpose of publicity regarding a case.

We have no way of knowing (quite rightly as this is an ongoing investigation) if technology has been used and the AG suggestion has been dealt with in this way.

Unfortunately a public reconstruction which might have the benefit of jogging people's minds in the way Crimewatch often successfully does here even decades after an event seems to be out of the question in Portugal where publicity of a missing child is still rather taboo.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

This is enlightening, ferryman

I was wondering why there was so much initial emphasis on Kate's mental state, before some of the other major issues are addressed

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I don't quite understand this, Admin.

If the McCanns need to prove that she is alive in order to sue Amaral for libel, then why would they have been advised by their lawyers to take Amaral to court before having proof?

[Admin]

I don't quite understand this, Admin.

If the McCanns need to prove that she is alive in order to sue Amaral for libel, then why would they have been advised by their lawyers to take Amaral to court before having proof?

Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either.  Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?

The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.

MW says it was after.

The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.

The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.




http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0

[gilet]

Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either.  Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?

The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.

MW says it was after.

The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.

The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.

If MW had been a little more clued in he might have stated just how soon after. I suspect that information will be somehow passed to the Judge by ID over the next day or so of proceedings.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Reading between the lines the eminent judge doesn't appear to be convinced either.  Did you notice the bit from the court report where she caught out Mr Wright on friday?

The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.

MW says it was after.

The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.


The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.




http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0

Interesting

So what is in the heads of the McCann lawyers?  What are they really trying to prove?

[sadie]

Interesting

So what is in the heads of the McCann lawyers?  What are they really trying to prove?

But of course, Sherlock, Amaral had been writing that book for months ... so it did interfere with the investigation.

There was a lot of work already done and a lot of money to come from that book

[stephen25000]

But of course, Sherlock, Amaral had been writing that book for months ... so it did interfere with the investigation.

There was a lot of work already done and a lot of money to come from that book

Prove the investigation was interfered with by the writing of the book.

[sadie]

Prove the investigation was interfered with by the writing of the book.

Everything has been affected by that damned book.

Still Amaral has made a fortune out of it 

[stephen25000]

Everything has been affected by that damned book.

Still Amaral has made a fortune out of it 

Where is this money then ?

 >@@(*&)