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

[jassi]

I believe so.

[Alfred R Jones]

I believe so.

OK, thanks. 

So, plenty of new material to scoff and jeer at for some then.

[jassi]

You bet it will   

[ferryman]

What are we supposed to be getting tomorrow?  I'm out of the loop about it. I know the McCanns are being allowed to present their case in person in court - is that tomorrow?

That is tomorrow.

And that concludes the trial, but judgment will be reserved.

[Albertini]

So how can Pike's, Hubbard's and Wright's claims under oath and in court about the couple not being affected by being made Arguidos tally with their on record statements previously about their Arguido status?

Someone's being dishonest.

[John]

It is claimed by many that the lawsuit ongoing in Lisbon is not a libel action or a libel trial at all.

This civil lawsuit being brought by the McCann family and in the names of Kate, Gerry and the 3 children, claims €1.2 million in damages.   Damages which they argue arose from comments made by the former Portuguese police Coordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral. These comments it is claimed, took several forms, the spoken word given in interviews and the written word published in newspaper articles and in his own writings including the book, 'The truth of the lie'.

It is claimed that those comments caused damage to the family as individuals and also damaged the search for Madeleine. 

The question is, can you make comments which are damaging but which do not constitute a defamation regardless of whether it be spoken (slander) or written (libel)?

The comments made by Dr Amaral which form the basis of this lawsuit relate solely to the disappearance of Madeleine.  He claims a thesis or theory in which Kate and Gerry McCann are culpable in said disappearance.  In essence, Dr Amaral has promoted the opinion that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were involved in a cover-up including a conspiracy to promote a simulated abduction.

This theory by its very nature could be argued is a defamation.  However, in Law, a defamation must generally relate to a claim which is false.

Question is, can damages be awarded for comments, regardless of how distasteful and emotionally upsetting they are, which are true?

[Mr Gray]

It is claimed by many that the lawsuit ongoing in Lisbon is not a libel action or a libel trial.

This civil lawsuit being brought by the McCann family and in the names of Kate, Gerry and the 3 children, claims €1.2 million in damages.   Damages which they argue arose from comments made by the former Portuguese police Coordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral. These comments it is claimed, took several forms, the spoken word given in interviews and the written word published in newspaper articles and in his own writings including the book, 'The truth of the lie'.

It is claimed that those comments caused damage to the family as individuals and also damaged the search for Madeleine. 

The question is, can you make comments which are damaging but which do not constitute a defamation regardless of whether it be spoken (slander) or written (libel)?

The comments made by Dr Amaral which form the basis of this lawsuit relate solely to the disappearance of Madeleine.  He claims a thesis or theory in which Kate and Gerry McCann are culpable in said disappearance.  In essence, Dr Amaral has promoted the opinion that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were involved in a cover-up including a conspiracy to promote a simulated abduction.

This theory by its very nature could be argued is a defamation.  However, in Law, a defamation must generally relate to a claim which is false.

Question is, can damages be awarded for comments, regardless of how distasteful and emotionally upsetting they are, which are true?

basic question john and one that has been answered many times...truth can be a defence against libel but it is up to the defendant to prove it's true

[John]

basic question john and one that has been answered many times...truth can be a defence against libel but it is up to the defendant to prove it's true

As you well know, that is not the case under Portuguese Law which is what we are concerned with here.

[Angelo222]

It is claimed by many that the lawsuit ongoing in Lisbon is not a libel action or a libel trial at all.

This civil lawsuit being brought by the McCann family and in the names of Kate, Gerry and the 3 children, claims €1.2 million in damages.   Damages which they argue arose from comments made by the former Portuguese police Coordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral. These comments it is claimed, took several forms, the spoken word given in interviews and the written word published in newspaper articles and in his own writings including the book, 'The truth of the lie'.

It is claimed that those comments caused damage to the family as individuals and also damaged the search for Madeleine. 

The question is, can you make comments which are damaging but which do not constitute a defamation regardless of whether it be spoken (slander) or written (libel)?

The comments made by Dr Amaral which form the basis of this lawsuit relate solely to the disappearance of Madeleine.  He claims a thesis or theory in which Kate and Gerry McCann are culpable in said disappearance.  In essence, Dr Amaral has promoted the opinion that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were involved in a cover-up including a conspiracy to promote a simulated abduction.

This theory by its very nature could be argued is a defamation.  However, in Law, a defamation must generally relate to a claim which is false.

Question is, can damages be awarded for comments, regardless of how distasteful and emotionally upsetting they are, which are true?

If somebody is a murderer for instance and I write about them and go on TV and ridicule them to the point that they suffer distress and anxiety, can they then sue me for damages?

[Mr Gray]

If somebody is a murderer for instance and I write about them and go on TV and ridicule them to the point that they suffer distress and anxiety, can they then sue me for damages?

no...because you can prove its true..

These are extremely basic points I'm surprised they are not understood

[stephen25000]

no...because you can prove its true..

These are extremely basic points I'm surprised they are not understood

The McCann's have claimed abduction with no evidence whatsoever and we know why they did that.

[Admin]

If somebody is a murderer for instance and I write about them and go on TV and ridicule them to the point that they suffer distress and anxiety, can they then sue me for damages?

Just a thought but surely the act of causing suffering and distress is sufficient to claim damages irrespective of whether the comments made are true or false?

By application, the act of causing the McCanns further suffering is surely actionable?

[jassi]

But if you are guilty then you deserve to be damaged, so shouldn't be able to get rewarded for being damaged.

[Mr Gray]

Just a thought but surely the act of causing suffering and distress is sufficient to claim damages irrespective of whether the comments made are true or false?

By application, the act of causing the McCanns further suffering is surely actionable?

depends on what was said......

[Mr Gray]

But if you are guilty then you deserve to be damaged, so shouldn't be able to get rewarded for being damaged.

that's about right