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

[John]

Erm, I'm not too sure about that, John.

How does the overturning of the temporary injunction of a book, pending a defamation trial, equate to an appeal process of the main trial which hadn't yet taken place?

ETA: And the first instance case is still in limbo.

From the Appellate Court decision...

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called 'appellant' in the appeals court.

[Carana]

From the Appellate Court decision...

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called 'appellant' in the appeals court.

That was an appeal against the temporary injunction and the counter appeal pending the actual trial.

How can anyone be considered to be an appellant in the first instance of a trial that still hasn't been concluded?

[Mr Gray]

From the Appellate Court decision...

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called 'appellant' in the appeals court.

Getting back on thread is there anyone else apart from Luz who doesn't realise this a libel trail

[John]

Getting back on thread is there anyone else apart from Luz who doesn't realise this a libel trail

Libel has a different meaning for the Portuguese.  trail??

[Mr Gray]

That was an appeal against the temporary injunction pending the actual trial.

How can anyone be considered to be an appellant in the first instance of a trial that still hasn't been concluded?

As Carana points out the trial that amaral was successful in was merely to overturn the TEMPORARY injunction...there has been no decision on libel as yet..

[Mr Gray]

Libel has a different meaning for the Portuguese.

perhaps thats why luz has it wrong then.

[John]

As Carana points out the trial that amaral was successful in was merely to overturn the TEMPORARY injunction...there has been no decision on libel as yet..

Indeed, the temporary injunction was overturned because the Appellate Court determined there was no defamation of the applicants.

The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

ie  there was no defamation.

[Mr Gray]

Indeed, the temporary injunction was overturned because the Appellate Court determined there was no defamation of the applicants.

it said defamation hadn't been proved...which is what the libel trial is about...
Amaral was recently asked in an interview about defamation regarding this trial...if it had been proved there was no defamation I think he would have said so...this trial is about defamation

[Carana]

I have no idea of how this case will actually work out.

If, under PT law, it is considered perfectly acceptable to accuse people of reprehensible activities in the interest of "free speech" that the plaintiff can't actually prove to be wrong, then perhaps Amaral may win his case.

[John]

I have no idea of how this case will actually work out.

If, under PT law, it is considered perfectly acceptable to accuse people of reprehensible activities in the interest of "free speech" that the plaintiff can't actually prove to be wrong, then perhaps Amaral may win his case.

Until Madeleine's fate is known I cannot see how a judge can possibly determine this case.

[Carana]

Until Madeleine's fate is known I cannot see how a judge can possibly determine this case.

Is that the issue in the libel trial?

How can asserting that she died in 5A with no supporting evidence, aside from an unsubstantiated woof from a dog and a cautious evaluation from its handler, lend credence to a coordinator, taken off the case after a few months, but who provided his opinion in several outlets for quite some time and who clearly didn't understand the DNA results, quite aside from other aspects?

[Mr Gray]

Until Madeleine's fate is known I cannot see how a judge can possibly determine this case.

In the UK the book would be libellous so it depends on how libel works in Portugal which in truth no one on this forum really understands... I cn't believe the mccanns would bring the case if they had no chance of winning and I don't believe amaral would have delayed things this much if he had no chance of losing..


having said all that..it is a libel trial

[John]

Is that the issue in the libel trial?

Very much so.  If Amaral's hypothesis is in any way found to be correct then he is not culpable of defamation.  If he is completely wrong then he is.

Here is another snippet from the Appellate Court giving the opinion that the McCanns brought the speculations upon themselves.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

[Carana]

In the UK the book would be libellous so it depends on how libel works in Portugal which in truth no one on this forum really understands... I cn't believe the mccanns would bring the case if they had no chance of winning and I don't believe amaral would have delayed things this much if he had no chance of losing..


having said all that..it is a libel trial

Unless I've got it totally wrong... Murat won his case in the UK and he only won on appeal in PT.

[Cariad]

Getting back on thread is there anyone else apart from Luz who doesn't realise this a libel trail

[/b]

Yeah, me.

I haven't got a clue what's going on. I know that the book was banned, then the ban was over turned, but the bookS weren't handed back. That Dr Amaral has had a hold put on his earnings/pension or some such.

I know that no one has produced much evidence for anything in this trail, that we've seen anyway. I know that the claim that saying Madeleine may be dead has hindered the search has become a little redundent know that SY have said the same and are infact about to try digging for her.

No. I have no idea whether this is a libel trial.