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

[Alfred R Jones]

Can someone please tell me how they think that Madeleine's status as a ward of the court, has any relevance whatsoever to Amaral, who is already WINNING the libel trial?

Or is Amaral's belated application just a manufactured excuse to delay?

It depends I suppose, on whether you accept that there is a question of Libel at all.

I do not accept the McCanns have a legal leg to stand on, because the book can only be libel if Amaral lied, and we know he didn't thanks to the McCanns running their censorship attempt through the Portugese courts and failing miserably.

Personally, familiar as I am with the courts, I can assure you that the ONLY way Madeleine's status is directly relevant to a libel case (which is an entirely separate matter) is if  the McCanns are trying to misrepresent her legal status somehow within the libel action.

So, essentially, the only sensible reasons Amaral has requested Madeleine's official legal status in Britain be clarified is either because it will help him prove they lied about it, OR, it is an unnecessary and organised attempt to shelve the trial for the time being.

Take your pick.

Either way, the libel trial was lost before it began.  Libel cannot be proven until Madeleine is located, end of.

I pick this one:  it is an unnecessary and organised attempt to shelve the trial for the time being.

[Mr Gray]

Can someone please tell me how they think that Madeleine's status as a ward of the court, has any relevance whatsoever to Amaral, who is already WINNING the libel trial?

Or is Amaral's belated application just a manufactured excuse to delay?

It depends I suppose, on whether you accept that there is a question of Libel at all.

I do not accept the McCanns have a legal leg to stand on, because the book can only be libel if Amaral lied, and we know he didn't thanks to the McCanns running their censorship attempt through the Portugese courts and failing miserably.

Personally, familiar as I am with the courts, I can assure you that the ONLY way Madeleine's status is directly relevant to a libel case (which is an entirely separate matter) is if  the McCanns are trying to misrepresent her legal status somehow within the libel action.

So, essentially, the only sensible reasons Amaral has requested Madeleine's official legal status in Britain be clarified is either because it will help him prove they lied about it, OR, it is an unnecessary and organised attempt to shelve the trial for the time being.

Take your pick.

Either way, the libel trial was lost before it began.  Libel cannot be proven until Madeleine is located, end of.

as you have been sown to be wrong on so many counts...i dont think anyone will be taking any notice of your opinions

[misty]

Madeleine was a WOC when the action was first launched against Amaral for damages as a result of libel. If there was any doubt about Madeleine's status, and her parents' eligibility to sue, then it would have been addressed and resolved then, thus removing the need for Amaral's assets to be frozen.

[Carana]

Madeleine was a WOC when the action was first launched against Amaral for damages as a result of libel. If there was any doubt about Madeleine's status, and her parents' eligibility to sue, then it would have been addressed and resolved then, thus removing the need for Amaral's assets to be frozen.

As others are wondering, why wasn't this legitimacy issue questioned at the time of the injunction trial and its various appeals? Or even as preparation for the defamation trial?

[Jean-Pierre]

because the book can only be libel if Amaral lied, and we know he didn't ...

Then what is the explanation of the extraordinary discrepancy between Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation and Harrison's actual role?

Amaral, in his book, accused the McCanns of some serious crimes.  He cites the Tavares interim report in support of these.  The Tavares report has been superceded by the final statement of the prosecutor.

As you say Amaral has also been rarher selective in a number of other areas, such as his reporting of the Harrison report, and other areas.

To accuse another of crime is potentially defamation.  Fair comment and truth may provide a defence.

It follows that the McCanns have a case against an ex policeman who accuses them of committing a crime without that crime being proven.     

Article 37
 
(Freedom of expression and information)
 
1. Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in
words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform
himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
 
2. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of
censorship.
 
3. Infractions committed in the exercise of the said rights shall be subject to the general
principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and shall be
brought before the courts of law or an independent administrative body respectively, as
laid down by law.
 
4. Every person and body corporate shall be equally and effectively guaranteed the right
of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages




 

[ferryman]

Amaral, in his book, accused the McCanns of some serious crimes.  He cites the Tavares interim report in support of these.  The Tavares report has been superceded by the final statement of the prosecutor.

As you say Amaral has also been rarher selective in a number of other areas, such as his reporting of the Harrison report, and other areas.

To accuse another of crime is potentially defamation.  Fair comment and truth may provide a defence.

It follows that the McCanns have a case against an ex policeman who accuses them of committing a crime without that crime being proven.     

Article 37
 
(Freedom of expression and information)
 
1. Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in
words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform
himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
 
2. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of
censorship.
 
3. Infractions committed in the exercise of the said rights shall be subject to the general
principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and shall be
brought before the courts of law or an independent administrative body respectively, as
laid down by law.
 
4. Every person and body corporate shall be equally and effectively guaranteed the right
of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages

Add to that:

Amaral plagiarised the proper detective work of Mark Harrison in ruling out that Madeleine was buried on the beach to conclude that Gerry hid Madeline's body on the beach.

If Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police Liaison officer who asked her where Madeleine was, that detail must be contained in the "hidden files".

It seems exceedingly unlikely that Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, then sent Prior away with a flea in his ear to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.

[Mr Gray]

Indeed it was. It was Mr Jones' "pick" however so I was asking him why he picked more or less.

perhaps you should have asked SW why she thought those two choices were appropriate...which I think you would have done if you were truly of the middle way as you have claimed.Your posts put you firmly in the doubters camp

[John]

The temporary suspension of the public hearings after New Year is indeed an odd occurence given the momentum which was achieved following the restart of proceedings in October.  It's as if the judge is waiting for the new investigation to unearth something positive...literally.

[Mr Gray]

The temporary suspension of the public hearings after New Year is indeed an odd occurence given the momentum which was achieved following the restart of proceedings in October.  It's as if the judge is waiting for the new investigation to unearth something positive...literally.

More likely.....amaral is prepared to settle...the WOC issue being part of his attempt to limit damages.

[Brietta]

More likely.....amaral is prepared to settle...the WOC issue being part of his attempt to limit damages.

I cannot believe just how long this action has been allowed to be drawn out over the years with many spurious reasons being accepted for the delays. 

IMO the cumulative delays are injustices in themselves.

One must remember that Dr Amaral is not the only entity defending this particular action.  Therefore I think the legal teams of all three would require to be in agreement over settlement.   

[Mr Gray]

I cannot believe just how long this action has been allowed to be drawn out over the years with many spurious reasons being accepted for the delays. 

IMO the cumulative delays are injustices in themselves.

One must remember that Dr Amaral is not the only entity defending this particular action.  Therefore I think the legal teams of all three would require to be in agreement over settlement.

if amaral chose to settle the others would have no defense

[Jean-Pierre]

I cannot believe just how long this action has been allowed to be drawn out over the years with many spurious reasons being accepted for the delays. 

IMO the cumulative delays are injustices in themselves.

One must remember that Dr Amaral is not the only entity defending this particular action.  Therefore I think the legal teams of all three would require to be in agreement over settlement.

Quite.  And the delays have been on Amarals side.

This is a bit puzzling.

If he is on thrack to win the case, one would have thougt he would be anxious to get on with it as quickly as possible, get control of his money again and laugh all the way to bank.

So.... Why the delays?

[stephen25000]

There have been delays on both sides.

The latest is apparently due to Madeleine's status after 7 years.

[jassi]

Quite.  And the delays have been on Amarals side.

This is a bit puzzling.

If he is on thrack to win the case, one would have thougt he would be anxious to get on with it as quickly as possible, get control of his money again and laugh all the way to bank.

So.... Why the delays?

Lawyers love to drag things out.

[Jean-Pierre]

There have been delays on both sides.

The latest is apparently due to Madeleine's status after 7 years.

Apart from an unsucessful attempt to reach an out of court settlement, I cannot recall any delays occasioned by the McCanns.  But no doubt you will be able to list them. 

And Madeleines status is "missing".  And that will remain the case until she is found dead or alive.  The "seven year in absentia" rule is irrelevant.  But entirely predicatable that it should be introduced as a delaying tactic.

It is evident to anyone with even half a brain that Amaral is not exactly champing at the bit to conclude this case.  If he is so confident of winning, then it begs the question - "why?"