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

[Mr Gray]

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.

just as people can be referred to as innocent but charged at a later date if new evidence comes to light

[John]

It was an example.  Imagine there actually IS a man called Les Hovik and then ask yourself the same question.  The McCanns ARE real people and they HAVE been defamed in a book which makes unsubstantiated accusations about them, including that they lied.  This is quite undeniable, I can't fathom how anyone can argue that it doesn't!

Allegedly defamed is the correct term. In fact many untruths were told about events so at the end of the day one mans lie is another mans misunderstanding?

A lie is something which seeks to mislead.  A misunderstanding however can be excused by poor memory, stress, intoxication or many other plausible phenomena.

[Mr Gray]

It was an example.  Imagine there actually IS a man called Les Hovik and then ask yourself the same question.  The McCanns ARE real people and they HAVE been defamed in a book which makes unsubstantiated accusations about them, including that they lied.  This is quite undeniable, I can't fathom how anyone can argue that it doesn't!

From what I can gather in the case of libel...the defendant is presumed guilty and has to prove himself innocent....so defamation is assumed...libel in Portugal is similar to libel law in the US ..here in libel that accuses someone of a criminal offence the law is similar to the uk...its called libel per se. From the witnesses that have been called by amaral its obvious he is desperately trying to prove his case

[John]

From what I can gather in the case of libel...the defendant is presumed guilty and has to prove himself innocent....so defamation is assumed...libel in Portugal is similar to libel law in the US ..here in libel that accuses someone of a criminal offence the law is similar to the uk...its called libel per se. From the witnesses that have been called by amaral its obvious he is desperately trying to prove his case

I think desperate could more properly be applied to the McCanns actions when before Xmas they attempted to give evidence to the tribunal and were refused.  Anyone hazard a guess as to why the plaintiffs were refused the right to speak at their own libel proceedings?

[Eleanor]

from what I can see a lot of posters just cant face the truth...about the lies...amaral has told

This is beyond me.  And anyone who thinks that Amaral has just presented a hypothesis has got a problem with reality.
Apart from that he has told other lies related to other aspects of the investigation.

[Mr Gray]

I think desperate could more properly be applied to the McCanns actions when before Xmas they attempted to give evidence to the tribunal and were refused.  Anyone hazard a guess as to why the plaintiffs were refused the right to speak at their own libel proceedings?

Yes John I know exactly why....when the McCanns gave there list of witnesses the law was such that they could not give evidence. The law recently changed allowing plaintiffs to testify and this is why the mccanns applied to give evidence..its a simple as that

[stephen25000]

I think desperate could more properly be applied to the McCanns actions when before Xmas they attempted to give evidence to the tribunal and were refused.  Anyone hazard a guess as to why the plaintiffs were refused the right to speak at their own libel proceedings?

Interesting question.

Amaral was also denied the chance to give evidence as well.

So the judge was even handed.

[icabodcrane]

It was an example.  Imagine there actually IS a man called Les Hovik and then ask yourself the same question.  The McCanns ARE real people and they HAVE been defamed in a book which makes unsubstantiated accusations about them, including that they lied.  This is quite undeniable, I can't fathom how anyone can argue that it doesn't!

The McCanns' lawyer,  Isabel Duarte,  said,  "Mr Amaral must show he had good reason to believe his allegations were true and he made them in good faith" 

So if Amaral had good reason to believe the McCanns lied about events then he would not be defaming them by saying so

[stephen25000]

This is beyond me.  And anyone who thinks that Amaral has just presented a hypothesis has got a problem with reality.
Apart from that he has told other lies related to other aspects of the investigation.

Well the abduction has no evidence , just a thesis, no more.

So do the mccanns and those who believe in abduction have a problem with reality, or what ?

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns' lawyer,  Isabel Duarte,  said,  "Mr Amaral must show he had good reason to believe his allegations were true and he made them in good faith" 

So if Amaral had good reason to believe the McCanns lied about events then he would not be defaming them by saying so

I think you will find good reason means he has some proof they are true...see my other posts on the subject

[icabodcrane]

I think you will find good reason means he has some proof they are true...see my other posts on the subject

Well,  what you think Isabel Duarte   meant is neither here nor there  ...   I have posted what she  said

She did not say that Amaral must show he had  'proof'  that his allegations were true  ...  just that he must show he had good reason to  believe  they were true

[John]

Yes John I know exactly why....when the McCanns gave there list of witnesses the law was such that they could not give evidence. The law recently changed allowing plaintiffs to testify and this is why the mccanns applied to give evidence..its a simple as that

That wasn't my question. I asked if anyone could suggest a reason why they were refused bearing in mind the change in the law.

[John]

The McCanns' lawyer,  Isabel Duarte,  said,  "Mr Amaral must show he had good reason to believe his allegations were true and he made them in good faith" 

So if Amaral had good reason to believe the McCanns lied about events then he would not be defaming them by saying so

According to Amaral the conclusions rested on the proven facts and the evidence as interpreted in accordance with the principles of Portuguese Law. 

[Mr Gray]

Well,  what you think Isabel Duarte   meant is neither here nor there  ...   I have posted what she  said

She did not say that Amaral must show he had  'proof'  that his allegations were true  ...  just that he must show he had good reason to  believe  they were true

...you don't know what she meant either but what she is saying is that amaral MUST show he had good reason to believe his allegations were true that means the onus of proof is on amaral to show these good reasons...

[Mr Gray]

That wasn't my question. I asked if anyone could suggest a reason why they were refused bearing in mind the change in the law.

as afr as I know the final decision has not been made..perhaps the judge has heard enough