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

[Carana]

Luz has been posting things that are untrue for some time and that's why I felt it was important to highlight it. I can't understand why a moderator should then support Luz and claim she has superior knowledge...bizarre

If she had said that the UK and Portuguese legal systems are different and that therefore one should be wary of assuming that what would constitute libel in a UK sense would apply in Portugal, I'd have agreed with her to an extent. But that was not what she said.

[Brietta]

I'm in the same position as you, which in this case I think is a rather unique one. Most people have been interested since day one. It's only been a year, give or take, for me.

You quickly learn who you can rely on for accurate information. If in any doubt, check it yourself and don't be
afraid to ask for cites to back up a claim.

When I first joined here, the rule about providing links was enforced quite rigorously, which made it easier.

My first exposure was via a rabid 'anti' group. It takes some time to unlearn some of the myths, but you can be sure that if something is claimed that is untrue, someone from the 'other' side will correct it fairly quickly.

I still make mistakes and I'm still learning.

Thanks Cariad, that makes me feel a bit better, I’m not really interested in arguing my own position only like to argue on possible situations regarding the case. 

To that end there are posters on here for whom my respect knows no bounds.

For myself I think it is important to post a link when quoting others or making a statement of fact.  Conjecture or personal opinion should always be stated as such and should be within the bounds of what we know about the case.

The group you describe are ten a penny on the internet, whereas while I was still finding my feet I had this site bookmarked as “a log of all sorts of information”, and quite often used it as a reference point. 

For example, I was able to keep up with developments in the libel trial with confidence thanks to the translations provided by Anne Guedes and John. 

[John]

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

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 don't agree with the comment in bold.  The current proceedings in Lisbon are certainly a civil case, the subject of which is defamation and libel.

[slartibartfast]

I don't agree with the comment in bold.  The current proceedings in Lisbon are certainly a civil case, the subject if whuch s defamation and libel.

The McCanns want damages for what they claim are the effects of the book e.g. The damage to the search. It isn't libel as such.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns want damages for what they claim are the effects of the book e.g. The damage to the search. It isn't libel as such.

As I understand libel in Portugal can be either criminal or civil...this ones civil...luz is just plain wrong...just as she is wrong when she posts that amaral has been cleared

[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.

perhaps luz would like to explain that if the book is not libellous....why would the mccanns be entitled to any compensation

[Carana]

The McCanns want damages for what they claim are the effects of the book e.g. The damage to the search. It isn't libel as such.

Yes, they are seeking compensation. However, if the injunction hearing had deemed that there was nothing potentially libellous, on what grounds would this trial be based in order to seek said compensation?

[Carana]

perhaps luz would like to explain that if the book is not libellous....why would the mccanns be entitled to any compensation

Exactly my question, but our posts coincided.

ETA: Almost. As far as I can work out, it hasn't yet been determined whether libel has indeed occurred, so any entitlement to compensation is hypothetical depending on the outcome.

[Alfred R Jones]

Exactly - if Amaral has been cleared of libel then what possible legal reason have the McCanns got for claiming damages?

[Carana]

Exactly - if Amaral has been cleared of libel then what possible legal reason have the McCanns got for claiming damages?

Only Luz knows, apparently...

However, I'm still waiting for evidence of nearly all of her assertions. I guess she must be very busy...

[slartibartfast]

Exactly - if Amaral has been cleared of libel then what possible legal reason have the McCanns got for claiming damages?

If someone wrote a book saying Madeleine was dead, it wouldn't be libellous, but it could be said to affect the effort put into searching and hence cause damage to the search.

[Mr Gray]

If someone wrote a book saying Madeleine was dead, it wouldn't be libellous, but it could be said to affect the effort put into searching and hence cause damage to the search.

What about if they accuse the parents of covering up an accidental death...would that be libellous

[slartibartfast]

What about if they accuse the parents of covering up an accidental death...would that be libellous

That's already been tried.

[Mr Gray]

That's already been tried.

Absolute rubbish

Threres been an ex parte hearing..it hasn't been decided...what's your source ..luz

[Carana]

If someone wrote a book saying Madeleine was dead, it wouldn't be libellous, but it could be said to affect the effort put into searching and hence cause damage to the search.

If a former coordinator writes a book, narrates a documentary and regularly appears on TV and in the written press asserting that he somehow KNOWS what actually happened... how would you feel if it were your child, niece/nephew, parent / best friend who was missing?

Particularly if the same individual clearly had only one other case of such a nature and in which the family were in jail before they could even breathe?

And with the same coordinator who, in neither case, ever found any evidence of what had actually happened to the child?

Be honest. What if someone close to you had disappeared?

ETA. Stand back. Forget all the anti/pro arguments.

Imagine that someone very close to you had disappeared without a trace. How confident would you feel that the lead investigator was trying to convince the world that you and the rest of your family / friends were involved when you were certain that they weren't and that precious time was being wasted?