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

[Carana]

There you go again with the falsehoods.  There are many proven facts in this case.

I'm confused.

Facts about what? What is this current case actually about?

[John]

Sorry to interrupt Friday fun and games but surely the whole point of the libel hearings in Lisbon is to determine who is right and who is wrong?

[Carana]

Sorry to interrupt Friday fun and games but surely the whole point of the libel hearings in Lisbon is to determine who is right and who is wrong?

What about and according to what criteria?

[John]

What about and according to what criteria?

Isn't that what the libel trial is all about, to determine if the McCanns were defamed by the Amaral book and its hypothesis?

I originally held the view that it was a stalemate situation since Madeleine's fate is still unknown but I have moved from that position. If Duarte fails to make a case for defamation then the libel claim will fail.  So there are two possible outcomes that I can see.

1. McCanns prove the libel and win.
2. McCanns fail to prove the libel and lose.

As pointed out earlier, even if the McCanns lose it doesn't hold that Amaral's hypothesis is established.

[Mr Gray]

Isn't that what the libel trial is all about, to determine if the McCanns were defamed by the Amaral book and its hypothesis?

I originally held the view that it was a stalemate situation since Madeleine's fate is still unknown but I have moved from that position. If Duarte fails to make a case for defamation then the libel claim will fail.

so you now realise you were wrong...well I think you are still wrong..

all the witnesses amaral has called have tried to  prove his claims(defamation) are justified...the question is...has he succeeded...the mccanns have simply tried to show the damage done to them by the book and documentaries and have not tried to provide any proof of their innocence...

the most obvious conclusion to draw from that is that the onus of proof re his thesis is on amaral

[stephen25000]

Who said there was  a forced break in...are those your proven facts that show maddle died in an accident which was covered up by her parents...

you have read the book and tahts all you can come up with...amarals in bigger trouble than I thought

No davey boy, it's the mccanns who are in trouble.

[Mr Gray]

No davey boy, it's the mccanns who are in trouble.

I've decided to put you on ignore..

[stephen25000]

so you now realise you were wrong...well I think you are still wrong..

all the witnesses amaral has called have tried to  prove his claims(defamation) are justified...the question is...has he succeeded...the mccanns have simply tried to show the damage done to them by the book and documentaries and have not tried to provide any proof of their innocence...

the most obvious conclusion to draw from that is that the onus of proof re his thesis is on amaral

It's not just Amaral davey boy.

There are three defendants, and the other two have more financial clout than Amaral or the mccanns.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not relevant. The trial is about the book.
The title of the book is irrelevant too. It is what is written in the book that is at issue.

Hilarious.
"The Hobbit" - is a book about a hobbit, quite a relevant title.
"Pride & Prejudice" - is a book of manners, social and romantic goings-on in the early 19th Century and references Darcy's pride and Elizabeth's prejudice, hence the relevance of the title.
"The Truth of the Lie" is a book about the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance which attempts to get to the truth by examining the alleged lies told by her parents and their friends as part of a faked abduction, hence the relevance of the title.
To say the title of this book is not relevant is quite ridiculous.

[stephen25000]

I'm utterly bemused by the absurdity of this ongoing discussion.  It's as plain as the nose on Amaral's face that his book casts serious aspersions on the honesty integrity and morality of the McCanns, hence it is very obviously defamatory.

Amaral's theory ?

It wasn't just him.

It remains 'type of crime unknown'

His theory has every validity as you push abduction, whether you like it or not.

.......and there's nae evidence on abduction.

[John]

so you now realise you were wrong...well I think you are still wrong..

all the witnesses amaral has called have tried to  prove his claims(defamation) are justified...the question is...has he succeeded...the mccanns have simply tried to show the damage done to them by the book and documentaries and have not tried to provide any proof of their innocence...

the most obvious conclusion to draw from that is that the onus of proof re his thesis is on amaral

Dave, you are missing the main point. Amaral and the other defendants don't have to do anything unless the plaintiff makes a case.  Without a claim there is no case.  Duarte had to make a case and it was for Amaral's and the others lawyers to knock it down.  Now remind me, what significant evidence has Duarte introduced excluding the book and the DVD?

In two words...very little.

[Mr Gray]

Dave, you are missing the main point. Amaral and the other defendants don't have to do anything unless the plaintiff makes a case.  Without a claim there is no case.  Duarte had to make a case and it was for Amaral's and the others lawyers to knock it down.  Now remind me, what significant evidence has Duarte introduced except the book and the DVD.

In two words...very little.

where is your knowledge of Portuguese law coming from John...could you answer that question

[John]

you made claim that I said amaral is wrong...you failed miserably to back it up

you now try to divert.....lots of evidence to show the mcccanns innocence...and SY agree with me

Sorry Dave but I don't recall anyone at  SY stating that any member of the group was INNOCENT.  So how can SY agree with you, are you making this up as you go along?

[Mr Gray]

Sorry Dave but I don't recall anyone at  SY stating that any member of the group was INNOCENT.  Are you making this up as you go along?

are you giving up with the question re Portuguese law...seems you are...are you making your claims up re the trial up as you go along


SY have stated that the mccanns are not suspects..if you are not suspects the innocent is a reasonable description of your status..imo

[John]

are you giving up with the question re Portuguese law...seems you are...are you making your claims up re the trial up as you go along


SY have stated that the mccanns are not suspects..if you are not suspects the innocent is a reasonable description of your status..imo

Absolutely wrong on both counts. Redwood has stated that none of the tapas-9 are suspects. That however could very well change if a corpse is found in Praia da Luz.