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

[Mr Gray]

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?

Does anyone really know how libel works in Portugal....therefore posting that the burden of proof is on the McCanns simply is guesswork...the way amaral has been avoiding the trial for so long when all his assets are frozen leads me to believe the mccanns have a strong case...hopefully there will be some news soon

[Carana]

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.

Why is what Amaral has written and said referred to as a "thesis"?

[Mr Gray]

Why is what Amaral has written and said referred to as a "thesis"?

It's more than a thesis...his book is called "The Truth"

[Carana]

Does anyone really know how libel works in Portugal....therefore posting that the burden of proof is on the McCanns simply is guesswork...the way amaral has been avoiding the trial for so long when all his assets are frozen leads me to believe the mccanns have a strong case...hopefully there will be some news soon

No. But how Murat only won his case against smears in the PT press on appeal still leaves me gobsmacked.

Sorry... gobsmacked = astounded, shocked.


Correction: I now have a doubt about that. It may be that he did win his case first time around, but that the amount of damages were reduced upon appeal. I'll add a verification if I find one.

[Mr Gray]

No. But how Murat only won his case against smears in the PT press on appeal still leaves me gobsmacked.

Sorry... gobsmacked = astounded, shocked.

but he won

[ferryman]

No. But how Murat only won his case against smears in the PT press on appeal still leaves me gobsmacked.

Sorry... gobsmacked = astounded, shocked.

On appeal?

Are you sure about that?

[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 have got the whole thing wrong..

You say the McCanns have to prove themselves guiltless...but they have not called one witness to this effect...all their witnesses have been to confirm their suffering....

You say that amaral doesn't have to prove anything....yet all his witnesses have been called to support his thesis

the facts speak for themselves... I think you are totally wrong

[John]

I think you have got the whole thing wrong..

You say the McCanns have to prove themselves guiltless...but they have not called one witness to this effect...all their witnesses have been to confirm their suffering....

You say that amaral doesn't have to prove anything....yet all his witnesses have been called to support his thesis

the facts speak for themselves... I think you are totally wrong

I think your favourite word is 'wrong'.

The civil libel laws in Portugal as Carana has pointed out puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove his or her case.  The defender does not have to establish anything unless he or she chooses to do so.  It was exactly the same when Murat sued the Portuguese Press, he had to establish that his reputation and honour had been impinged by the articles written about him. 

Free speech is very important to the Portuguese and this is also reflected in their libel laws.  As you know Amaral eventually won his case over the book and DVD ban because in the end the Court accepted they were in accordance with that which was already in the public domain.

If the libel action fails I wholly expect Amaral to raise a case for damages and that then will be for him to prove.

[Mr Gray]

I think your favourite word is 'wrong'.

The civil libel laws in Portugal as Carana has pointed out puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove his or her case.  The defender does not have to establish anything unless he or she chooses to do so.  It was exactly the same when Murat sued the Portuguese Press, he had to establish that his reputation and honour had been impinged by the articles written about him. 

Free speech is very important to the Portuguese and this is also reflected in their libel laws.  As you know Amaral eventually won his case over the book and DVD ban because in the end the Court accepted they were in accordance with that which was already in the public domain.

If the libel action fails I wholly expect Amaral to raise a case for damages and that then will be for him to prove.

It won't be difficult for the McCanns to prove their reputation has been damaged...saying someone has covered up the accidental death of their daughter...lied to the police...set up a fraudulent fund...that's pretty defamatory

[ferryman]

Did we ever get to the root of why, at the outset of the trial, Amaral's lawyer Santos made a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive?

I have a hunch of the reason, but not firm evidence to back the hunch.

[ferryman]

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.

Perhaps the difference, here, is that if the McCanns prevail, the money will go, not to the McCanns, but to the find Madeleine fund?

[jassi]

Perhaps the difference, here, is that if the McCanns prevail, the money will go, not to the McCanns, but to the find Madeleine fund?

Is there a real difference?

[Wonderfulspam]

Doesn't matter his book...which you have seen extracts of have reinforced your opinion

No, the police files did that.

[jassi]

Doesn't matter...its not important...many people have been influenced by amaral

Is that a bad thing?  Would you want to restrict freedom of thought?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is that a bad thing?  Would you want to restrict freedom of thought?

Is it a bad thing?  It is for Amaral if it's shown to be so in court!