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

[Luz]

Criminal Law (Private Law) v.s. Civil Law (Common Law)

The First Trial over the book "Truth about the lie" was about defamation, damage of personality rights (image, good, name, honour,...) versus freedom of expression - 2 of the most important constitutional rights in Portuguese Law, and it fell within the parameters of Criminal Law. After all the levels of decision were followed, the Supreme Court decided towards the legitimacy of Freedom of Expression, considering the book didn't harm any private rights since, according to Portuguese Law, what it expressed was publicly available in the process case files.

The present Trial is about financial compensation for "alleged" damages caused by certain documents (book, CD, TV documentary). This is Civil Law, and it is common if you are about to present a court case for damages to ask for a cautionary arrest of the property of the individuals/organizations against which you are going to make such demand. It happens with private persons and with organizations all the time (so to speak).

What some people in here don't seem to grab is that this is not a "LIBEL" case - that has already been tried and the McCann lost - book, TV documentary & CD were not libelous. - This is about compensation pure and simple.
If you request to be compensated for a damage suffered you have to present unequivocal proof that such damages occurred. From the first sessions in Court I find it difficult to say the McCann have a case.

This is not a case where McCann being suspects or not have any relevance; this is not a case where previous trial courts where Amaral was present has relevance,...this is about the McCann demanding Amaral to pay them for "sufferings" they have to prove.

I know some people would prefer to wrap it all in the same package but that is not how the law works.

552

[Mr Gray]

Criminal Law (Private Law) v.s. Civil Law (Common Law)

The First Trial over the book "Truth about the lie" was about defamation, damage of personality rights (image, good, name, honour,...) versus freedom of expression - 2 of the most important constitutional rights in Portuguese Law, and it fell within the parameters of Criminal Law. After all the levels of decision were followed, the Supreme Court decided towards the legitimacy of Freedom of Expression, considering the book didn't harm any private rights since, according to Portuguese Law, what it expressed was publicly available in the process case files.

The present Trial is about financial compensation for "alleged" damages caused by certain documents (book, CD, TV documentary). This is Civil Law, and it is common if you are about to present a court case for damages to ask for a cautionary arrest of the property of the individuals/organizations against which you are going to make such demand. It happens with private persons and with organizations all the time (so to speak).

What some people in here don't seem to grab is that this is not a "LIBEL" case - that has already been tried and the McCann lost - book, TV documentary & CD were not libelous. - This is about compensation pure and simple.
If you request to be compensated for a damage suffered you have to present unequivocal proof that such damages occurred. From the first sessions in Court I find it difficult to say the McCann have a case.

This is not a case where McCann being suspects or not have any relevance; this is not a case where previous trial courts where Amaral was present has relevance,...this is about the McCann demanding Amaral to pay them for "sufferings" they have to prove.

I know some people would prefer to wrap it all in the same package but that is not how the law works.

You are the poster who told us amaral has been cleared by a court ...total rubbish...do you still claim this...

we take your posts with a pinch of salt

[Mr Gray]

Criminal Law (Private Law) v.s. Civil Law (Common Law)

The First Trial over the book "Truth about the lie" was about defamation, damage of personality rights (image, good, name, honour,...) versus freedom of expression - 2 of the most important constitutional rights in Portuguese Law, and it fell within the parameters of Criminal Law. After all the levels of decision were followed, the Supreme Court decided towards the legitimacy of Freedom of Expression, considering the book didn't harm any private rights since, according to Portuguese Law, what it expressed was publicly available in the process case files.

The present Trial is about financial compensation for "alleged" damages caused by certain documents (book, CD, TV documentary). This is Civil Law, and it is common if you are about to present a court case for damages to ask for a cautionary arrest of the property of the individuals/organizations against which you are going to make such demand. It happens with private persons and with organizations all the time (so to speak).

What some people in here don't seem to grab is that this is not a "LIBEL" case - that has already been tried and the McCann lost - book, TV documentary & CD were not libelous. - This is about compensation pure and simple.
If you request to be compensated for a damage suffered you have to present unequivocal proof that such damages occurred. From the first sessions in Court I find it difficult to say the McCann have a case.

This is not a case where McCann being suspects or not have any relevance; this is not a case where previous trial courts where Amaral was present has relevance,...this is about the McCann demanding Amaral to pay them for "sufferings" they have to prove.

I know some people would prefer to wrap it all in the same package but that is not how the law works.

what your post proves is you haven't got a clue what you are talking about

[Mr Moderator]

what your post proves is you haven't got a clue what you are talking about

Mr Davel.  As a Portuguese national Luz knows better than most of us how the Law works in her country.  Whether she chooses to share that knowledge is another matter.

That said, the current legal action in Portugal brought by Gerry and Kate McCann and their three children alleges they have been libelled by the book and DVD published by Goncalo Amaral and those publishers and other media organisations who have been involved in their distribution.  The McCanns are seeking £1m damages in that libel.

[Mr Gray]

Mr Davel.  As a Portuguese national Luz knows better than most of us how the Law works in her country.  Whether she chooses to share that knowledge is another matter.

I don't agree...She has claimed on several occasions amaral has been cleared by a court...absolute rubbish..

This latest description of the present libel trial is absolute fiction...this is  a libel trial..

if you want to think that just because Luz is Portugese she knows more than yourself that's up to you...but Ive seen her post things that just are not true so I'm not impressed

[Mr Moderator]

I don't agree...She has claimed on several occasions amaral has been cleared by a court...absolute rubbish..

This latest description of the present libel trial is absolute fiction...this is  a libel trial..

if you want to think that just because Luz is Portugese she knows more than yourself that's up to you...but Ive seen her post things that just are not true so I'm not impressed

What she knows and what she chooses to post are not necessarily the same thing.

[Mr Gray]

Luz is a portuguese poster and therefore some might place more belief in her posts. Its important to point out posts she has made that have been untrue...I'll leave it there now

[jassi]

luz is a portuguese poster and therefore some might place more belief in her posts. Its important to point out posts she has made that have been untrue...I'll leave it there now

Important to whom?

[Mr Gray]

Important to whom?

There are 91 guests viewing this forum...I think its important to challenge posts that are untrue

[stephen25000]

There are 91 guests viewing this forum...I think its important to challenge posts that are untrue

Let the guests judge for themselves, as they will on your,my and any other person's posts.

[Mr Gray]

Let the guests judge for themselves, as they will on your,my and any other person's posts.

of course and that's why I have to correct luz

[Brietta]

Important to whom?

It is very important to me, jassie.

There are numerous forums on the internet where Madeleine’s case is discussed and truth seems to be the last consideration.
I am not only a Newbie to this forum, which I followed for a while before asking to join, I am a Newbie to the case too and am learning things as I go along. 

I do not want to be given false information. 

I want to be certain that whatever information I am being given is accurate to the best of the poster's ability and false information is a genuine error and not intended to mislead.
 

[jassi]

It is very important to me, jassie.

There are numerous forums on the internet where Madeleine’s case is discussed and truth seems to be the last consideration.
I am not only a Newbie to this forum, which I followed for a while before asking to join, I am a Newbie to the case too and am learning things as I go along. 

I do not want to be given false information. 

I want to be certain that whatever information I am being given is accurate to the best of the poster's ability and false information is a genuine error and not intended to mislead.
 

And how can you be sure of that ?  At the end of the day we all believe who and what we want to believe.

[Mr Gray]

And how can you be sure of that ?  At the end of the day we all believe who and what we want to believe.

I would have thought we believe what makes most sense and if a poster has been shown to have posted things that are blatantly untrue then its best if it is highlighted. Luz has every opportunity to answer what I have said. its important that both sides are given then posters can make up their own minds

[icabodcrane]

And how can you be sure of that ?  At the end of the day we all believe who and what we want to believe.

      "All lies and jest,
       Still a man hears what he wants to hear
       And disregards the rest
       Ooh-la-la-la-la-la-la-la"

Simon and Garfunkle,  The boxer