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

[stephen25000]

tell me Stephen...have you ever heard the police ACCUSE someone....they normally charge someone who is presumed innocent..remember

Only when charged with a crime davel.

[Carana]

Tell me davel, when normal police are investigating a case and believe someone is guilty of a crime when they accuse them of one, are they committing libel ?  >@@(*&)

What do you consider to be "normal" police?

It is one thing for the police to investigate whoever they wish to. I have no problem with that whatsoever - indeed it's their job.

It would seem (IMO) to be different for an ex-leading investigating officer, removed from the case after a few months, to choose to convince the public at large of his hypothesis in the absence of any corroborating evidence, particularly when a potentially living missing child is involved. Even more so when his experience and competence in investigating the type of crime in question is somewhat dubious.

[stephen25000]

What do you consider to be "normal" police?

It is one thing for the police to investigate whoever they wish to. I have no problem with that whatsoever - indeed it's their job.

It would seem (IMO) to be different for an ex-leading investigating officer, removed from the case after a few months, to choose to convince the public at large of his hypothesis in the absence of any corroborating evidence, particularly when a potentially living missing child is involved. Even more so when his experience and competence in investigating the type of crime in question is somewhat dubious.

Why ?

Have you been in the force ?

[Carana]

There is some debate about where the burden of proof in a Portuguese libel trial lies.

Wherever it lies, there is no dispute that the McCanns can prove that statements about them that lower their reputation are also untrue.

That'll do!

It will ensure the McCanns win the libel trial.

As far as I've been able to gather, the burden of proof in a civil case in Portugal is on the plaintiffs - and that involves somehow proving damage and the extent of damage caused so that the judge can quantify it. Easier said than done, methinks.

Again, according to my understanding, an exception would be if media law came into play as there may - or may not be - a case for placing the burden of proof on the defendant (if the defendant is considered to be part of the "media", as opposed to a private citizen). This appears to have been the case (won on appeal) in the Murat v CdaM case. In the McCann case, there are several defendants, one of which is a media outlet. ETA: Amaral, on the other hand, may be considered as a private citizen as opposed to a member of the media, even as an author, narrator, and columnist and guest on TV chat shows (the latter two for media outlets which may not be part of the current suit, particularly the column in CdaM).

Bottom line is... no idea, and there may only be a final ruling 10 years from now or more.

[ferryman]

As far as I've been able to gather, the burden of proof in a civil case in Portugal is on the plaintiffs - and that involves somehow proving damage and the extent of damage caused so that the judge can quantify it. Easier said than done, methinks.

Again, according to my understanding, an exception would be if media law came into play as there may - or may not be - a case for placing the burden of proof on the defendant (if the defendant is considered to be part of the "media", as opposed to a private citizen). This appears to have been the case (won on appeal) in the Murat v CdaM case. In the McCann case, there are several defendants, one of which is a media outlet. ETA: Amaral, on the other hand, may be considered as a private citizen as opposed to a member of the media, even as an author, narrator, and columnist and guest on TV chat shows (the latter two for media outlets which may not be part of the current suit, particularly the column in CdaM).

Bottom line is... no idea, and there may only be a final ruling 10 years from now or more.

As far as I've been able to gather, the burden of proof in a civil case in Portugal is on the plaintiffs - and that involves somehow proving damage and the extent of damage caused so that the judge can quantify it. Easier said than done, methinks

Where is the problem about proving that baseless accusations that you are directly responsible for the death of your own child, responsible for covering up that death and lying about it, and responsible for launching a fraudulent fund in your (deceased!) daughter's name, causes damage, not least to the search for Madeleine, because it encourages the belief that Madeleine is dead, and discourages people from looking for her?

I really don't see the argument.

And I even believe that Portuguese judges couldn't see the argument either, and that is why they (kindly!) thwarted the attempt of Kate and Gerry to testify at the trial.

I think it was an act of kindness, to spare them the ordeal of having to testify.

I think they were convinced, without needing to hear it from the McCanns' own lips, that they had suffered damage ...

[Carana]

As far as I've been able to gather, the burden of proof in a civil case in Portugal is on the plaintiffs - and that involves somehow proving damage and the extent of damage caused so that the judge can quantify it. Easier said than done, methinks

Where is the problem about proving that baseless accusations that you are directly responsible for the death of your own child, responsible for covering up that death and lying about it, and responsible for launching a fraudulent fund in your (deceased!) daughter's name, causes damage, not least to the search for Madeleine, because it encourages the belief that Madeleine is dead, and discourages people from looking for her?

I really don't see the argument.

And I even believe that Portuguese judges couldn't see the argument either, and that is why they (kindly!) thwarted the attempt of Kate and Gerry to testify at the trial.

I think it was an act of kindness, to spare them the ordeal of having to testify.

I think they were convinced, without needing to hear it from the McCanns' own lips, that they had suffered damage ...

I agree with you, FM, to a certain extent. However, I'm not sure how many cases of this nature Portuguese courts have actually dealt with.

Most of the civil cases that I've tried to wade through seem to be the usual business or neighbour disputes. Quantifying damages in business cases may not always be easy as the plaintiffs apparently have to prove not only that there had been a loss of business but a quantifiable figure of compensation. In a neighbour's kid-damaged-a-plane-of-glass-in-my-greenhouse type scenario, the damage may be easier to quantify.

Trying to prove not only that damage had been caused (that may be down to common sense), but the extent of damage and placing a figure on that in a less tangible case may not be that easy.

[VIXTE]

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.

Dear Mr Moderator,

I appreciate your input but what Luz has posted above is a presentation of her opinion and not a link to any legal documents.

This presentation in my opinion has been PR'd, with intention to cause a reader to form an opinion.
In the UK, thank you very much, we live in a free democratic society, where we are allowed to freely think and form our opinions with an open mind.

[John]

In order to prove they had suffered loss or damage in a Portuguese libel trial the McCanns will have to prove they are guiltless in the disappearance of their daughter.  I really don't know how they will manage that one?

Amaral's thesis might be unproven but so are the McCanns claims of innocence.

[Wonderfulspam]

In order to prove they had suffered loss or damage in a Portuguese libel trial the McCanns will have to prove they are guiltless in the disappearance of their daughter.  I really don't know how they will manage that one?

Amaral's thesis might be unproven but so are the McCanns claims of innocence.

DCI Redwood will be appearing as a witness for the McCanns. 
He will be presenting the evidence, that he obviously has, which clearly demonstrates the McCanns innocence. 

[ferryman]

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

Covering up an accidental death, concealing a body, launching a fraudulent 'fund' in said "deceased daughter's" name and lying about known events ...

Libel?

Not a bit of it ...

[ferryman]

What do you consider to be "normal" police?

It is one thing for the police to investigate whoever they wish to. I have no problem with that whatsoever - indeed it's their job.

It would seem (IMO) to be different for an ex-leading investigating officer, removed from the case after a few months, to choose to convince the public at large of his hypothesis in the absence of any corroborating evidence, particularly when a potentially living missing child is involved. Even more so when his experience and competence in investigating the type of crime in question is somewhat dubious.

Precisely!

What goes on within the confines of a criminal investigation are exempted from the usual provisions of libel, and rightly so, because otherwise the police would never be able to investigate crime.

Even though Ameida's claims about Kate's father are palpably untrue, because he has never (to my knowledge!) repeated them outside the confines of the investigation, these allegations are not actionable in libel.

Amaral wrote a book.

That is quite different.

[Mr Gray]

In order to prove they had suffered loss or damage in a Portuguese libel trial the McCanns will have to prove they are guiltless in the disappearance of their daughter.  I really don't know how they will manage that one?

Amaral's thesis might be unproven but so are the McCanns claims of innocence.

I think you are wrong and the mccanns dont have to prove anything. As far as I understand the portuguese system is similar to the US .....and this would be libel in the US

[John]

I think you are wrong and the mccanns dont have to prove anything. As far as I understand the portuguese system is similar to the US .....and this would be libel in the US

It's nothing to do with the system.  Amaral published a thesis based on the Portuguese police investigation and the McCanns dispute it.  Neither party can prove their contentions therefore the question of any libel is a stalemate.

[Mr Gray]

It's nothing to do with the system.  Amaral published a thesis based on the Portuguese police investigation and the McCanns dispute it.  Neither party can prove their contentions therefore the question of any libel is a stalemate.

Who says so....Who says the McCanns have to prove anything...doesn't sound right...unless you have REAL knowledge of how libel works in Portugal or are you just repeating what you have read on forums

[Carana]

I think you are wrong and the mccanns dont have to prove anything. As far as I understand the portuguese system is similar to the US .....and this would be libel in the US

I wouldn't count on that, although I'm still trying to work this out... Didn't Murat win his case against the PT press on appeal?