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

[Anna]

Excerpt:- Murat Trial...........................

Summary:    I - In the matter of civil liability for violation of credit and good name, the burden of proof lies with the victim, the existence of limited offensive imputations of the goods concerned.
  II - The fact that certain information on the private lives of citizens raise the public's interest in fácticos terms, does not mean that disclosure is in the public interest in normative terms.
 

[Mr Gray]

Excerpt:- Murat Trial...........................

Summary:    I - In the matter of civil liability for violation of credit and good name, the burden of proof lies with the victim, the existence of limited offensive imputations of the goods concerned.
  II - The fact that certain information on the private lives of citizens raise the public's interest in fácticos terms, does not mean that disclosure is in the public interest in normative terms.

Burden of proof of what...that they have been defamed....that they have suffered injury...this fits exactly with what evidence the mccanns are producing and would point to me being absolutely correct

[Silkywhiskers]

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?

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement, coming at a time when the military are employing ground penetrating radar 100m from 5a's front door.

[Carana]

I am fairly certain the mccanns do not have to prove anything and the onus of proof is on amaral

Not sure. There was a legal presumption taken into account in Murat's appeal from what I can gather (Google translate came out as gibberish):

VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.
VIII - Esta presunção legal isenta o autor-lesado do ónus da prova do facto, ou seja, o conhecimento, a aceitação e a imputação da publicação, por parte do diretor, a que a presunção conduz.

The gist seems to concern the editor of the publication, who is presumed to bear responsibility for what is published, thus relieving the plaintiff of the onus. That sounds to me as if the editor was trying to wriggle out of it by blaming the journalists (who also bear responsibility). However, having just reread that, it doesn't actually say that the onus was reversed.

I'm not sure whether or not a legal presumption regarding the press would apply in the McCann case or not.

This may not be the latest version, but it's all I've found in English on PT press law:
http://www.gmcs.pt/en/press-law

The PT version is here:
http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=138&tabela=leis

 

[John]

Burden of proof of what...that they have been defamed....that they have suffered injury...this fits exactly with what evidence the mccanns are producing and would point to me being absolutely correct

What?  One moment you are saying the burden is on Amaral and now you are saying it is on the McCanns?

The latter is correct and you were wrong.

[Mr Gray]

What?  One moment you are saying the burden is on Amaral and now you are saying it is on the McCanns?

The latter is correct and you were wrong.

I think you will find I am right...the burden of proof of what was my post...the mccanns do not have to disprove amarals accusations...that much is clear

[stephen25000]

I think you will find I am right...the burden of proof of what was my post...the mccanns do not have to disprove amarals accusations...that much is clear

Nah.

[Victoria]

What?  One moment you are saying the burden is on Amaral and now you are saying it is on the McCanns?

The latter is correct and you were wrong.

In most jurisdictions, there are certain categories of libel where the burden of proof is reversed. Accusing someone of a crime is one such category, where it is on the person making the accusation (and therefore the defendant in any libel trial) to prove that their accusations are correct. Is Portugal any different?

[John]

I think you will find I am right...the burden of proof of what was my post...the mccanns do not have to disprove amarals accusations...that much is clear

Well that's a simple one ... they can't.

Maybe you hadn't noticed but Isabel Duarte had first crack of the whip in order to put her case.  The defenders had merely to respond.

[Mr Gray]

Well that's a simple one ... they can't.

Maybe you hadn't noticed but Isabel Duarte had first crack of the whip in order to put her case.

its clear they don't have to as Isabel Duarte made no attempt to do so..

It is clear that Amaral has to prove his thesis is exactly what is in the files because that is all he has tried to do..if you read his witness statemnets

[Carana]

I have no idea how the McCann defamation trial will work out.

The mysteries of Portuguese law and judges, I suppose.

I find it quite extraordinary that Murat had to go through an appeal process in Portugal in his litigation against a Portuguese tabloid for publishing lurid headlines (and often content) with his photo alongside.

[Mr Gray]

In most jurisdictions, there are certain categories of libel where the burden of proof is reversed. Accusing someone of a crime is one such category, where it is on the person making the accusation (and therefore the defendant in any libel trial) to prove that their accusations are correct. Is Portugal any different?

This is certainly true in most US states and as the system in Portugal is believed to be similar is probably true...its referred to as Libel per se

[Silkywhiskers]

The McCanns lost their attempt to remove the book from the shelves, because the Portugese Supreme Court ruled that the book is

"an accurate account of the investigation"

This means the book is NOT libellous.

Libel has to be FALSE.  If you can't prove it's false, it's not libel.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns lost their attempt to remove the book from the shelves, because the Portugese Supreme Court ruled that the book is

"an accurate account of the investigation"

This means the book is NOT libellous.

Libel has to be FALSE.  If you can't prove it's false, it's not libel.

Thev mccanns don't have t prove its false you have things back to front as usual

[Silkywhiskers]

Thev mccanns don't have t prove its false you have things back to front as usual

Then why did they lose the attempt to censor the book?

Why has the current "libel" trial been indefinitely suspended?

It was only expected to run a week or so.