Luz declares the Portuguese libel trial is not a libel trial ?

[Carana]

Very much so.  If Amaral's hypothesis is in any way found to be correct then he is not culpable of defamation.  If he is completely wrong then he is.

Here is another snippet from the Appellate Court giving the opinion that the McCanns brought the speculations upon themselves.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

According to whom? Based on what considerations may that extend beyond a temporary injunction trial as opposed to a full-blown libel one?

[John]

According to whom? Based on what considerations may that extend beyond a temporary injunction trial as opposed to a full-blown libel one?

Common sense regardless of what language is used.

[Carana]

Common sense regardless of what language is used.

OK, so if I had been a temporary investigating officer in your case, and there was either an official statement, or even hearsay, that you regularly chopped off kittens' heads and abused your kids that would be acceptable to you, would it?

And you wouldn't have any problem about this officer writing a book, appearing in documentary, appearing on TV chat shows, having a tabloid column insisting on the fact that he was led to believe that your kitten-head-chopping activities were actually true?

This case isn't about kittens, but a child.

[Anna]

From what I have read........I think the first part was about Invasion of privacy caused by Amaral, but since the McCanns made so many aspects of their private life, public and encouraged publicity, in the hopes of finding Maddie, this accusation was deemed Unproved and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Appeal....The contents of his book however are being tried for difamacao (Libel in our country)
 If the contents of the book, can be proved untrue, the case will be won by the Plaintiff, otherwise Amaral wins.......
There is also the damage to their lives caused by the accusations in the book, which is being examined.
Difficult one  >@@(*&)
 Terrible that in the name of free speech, you can write and publish unproved accusations.
This is just how I see it, please correct me if wrong,

[Mr Gray]

[/b]

Yeah, me.

I haven't got a clue what's going on. I know that the book was banned, then the ban was over turned, but the bookS weren't handed back. That Dr Amaral has had a hold put on his earnings/pension or some such.

I know that no one has produced much evidence for anything in this trail, that we've seen anyway. I know that the claim that saying Madeleine may be dead has hindered the search has become a little redundent know that SY have said the same and are infact about to try digging for her.

No. I have no idea whether this is a libel trial.

Amaral didn't say maddie MAY be dead he said she WAS dead...there is a massive difference and something you and others seem to have not realised

[Victoria]

Has there ever been any official confirmation that the libel trial really has been adjourned while the ward of the court stuff is sorted out? Or has it just come from Amaral's supporters?

[Mr Gray]

Has there ever been any official confirmation that the libel trial really has been adjourned while the ward of the court stuff is sorted out? Or has it just come from Amaral's supporters?

it is that quiet I think it is perfectly feasible that amaral has "caved in"

[Victoria]

it is that quiet I think it is perfectly feasible that amaral has "caved in"

Yes, I think he has settled.

[Carana]

Has there ever been any official confirmation that the libel trial really has been adjourned while the ward of the court stuff is sorted out? Or has it just come from Amaral's supporters?

Hard to tell. The entire issue has been going on for years as it is. Check back next decade.

[Carana]

it is that quiet I think it is perfectly feasible that amaral has "caved in"

No idea.

He wasn't the only defendant and it's far from certain that they all agree (if indeed they need to agree on a common defence).

The court case seemed to have been advancing until this last-minute "ace" about the WOC issue. Who raised it and why? Did all the defendants and their counsel find it to be helpful and relevant?

[Victoria]

No idea.

He wasn't the only defendant and it's far from certain that they all agree (if indeed they need to agree on a common defence).

The court case seemed to have been advancing until this last-minute "ace" about the WOC issue. Who raised it and why? Did all the defendants and their counsel find it to be helpful and relevant?

Do we even know for sure that the ward of the court issue was raised though? I know Amaral and his lawyer were talking to a newspaper about it, but that's not the same thing as it being raised in a court room.

Personally, I believe the issue is just a smokescreen.

[Carana]

From what I have read........I think the first part was about Invasion of privacy caused by Amaral, but since the McCanns made so many aspects of their private life, public and encouraged publicity, in the hopes of finding Maddie, this accusation was deemed Unproved and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Appeal....The contents of his book however are being tried for difamacao (Libel in our country)
If the contents of the book, can be proved untrue, the case will be won by the Plaintiff, otherwise Amaral wins.......
There is also the damage to their lives caused by the accusations in the book, which is being examined.
Difficult one  >@@(*&)
 Terrible that in the name of free speech, you can write and publish unproved accusations.
This is just how I see it, please correct me if wrong,

How could they possibly prove that they hadn't covered up a death and concealed the body of their child who may not even be dead in the first place?

[Mr Gray]

From what I have read........I think the first part was about Invasion of privacy caused by Amaral, but since the McCanns made so many aspects of their private life, public and encouraged publicity, in the hopes of finding Maddie, this accusation was deemed Unproved and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Appeal....The contents of his book however are being tried for difamacao (Libel in our country)
If the contents of the book, can be proved untrue, the case will be won by the Plaintiff, otherwise Amaral wins.......
There is also the damage to their lives caused by the accusations in the book, which is being examined.
Difficult one  >@@(*&)
 Terrible that in the name of free speech, you can write and publish unproved accusations.
This is just how I see it, please correct me if wrong,

I am fairly certain the mccanns do not have to prove anything and the onus of proof is on amaral

[John]

I am fairly certain the mccanns do not have to prove anything and the onus of proof is on amaral

Portugal Dave, not the UK where the onus is on the defendant.  Clue for you...the plaintiffs had first bite at the cherry.

[Mr Gray]

Portugal Dave, not the UK where the onus us on the defendant.  Clue for you...the plaintiffs had first bite at the cherry.

You only have to look at the daily reports from the trial on this site...amaral is desperately trying to prove that his book is faithfull to the files...the reports are here for everyone to read...cant you see it John...why is he doing this if...as you say...its the mccannns who have to supply proof that they are innocent