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

[Eleanor]

Of course it is Eleanor, Dave is spot on this time.  Defamation (libel or slander) have to be proven first and then the damages and compensation will follow.  It ain't rocket science even in Portugal.

I do so agree.  Thank goodness for that.

I know we have all now rather lost track of what has happened at The Libel Trial over the years.  But it wouldn't be happening if it wasn't a Libel Trial.  And Amaral wouldn't have been producing witnesses to say it was just a hypothesis that he and his mates all agreed on.

[John]

Always remember that Amaral has never claimed that the McCanns murdered Madeleine.  His claim is that she died from an accident, that they hid her remains and invented/fabricated an abduction.

[icabodcrane]

Of course it is Eleanor, Dave is spot on this time.  Defamation (libel or slander) have to be proven first and then the damages and compensation will follow.  It ain't rocket science even in Portugal.

It's odd though,  isn't it,  that no accusations   ( or even mention )  of what, specifically,  was libelous in Amaral's book were made in court

The McCanns' lawyer made no attempt to show that what Amaral had written was not true  ( or libelous )  ...  she merely made the case for how much damage the book had caused to her clients and the search for their missing daughter

Similarly,  all the McCanns' witnesses  testified as to the level of damage the book had caused them,  and nothing else

As far as I could tell it was not established that the book had  'libelled'  the McCanns at all ...   I did not see where that was even attempted

The trial, so far,  has seemed,  to me,  to be all about the amount of damage it caused the McCanns

Did others see it differently  ? 

[Eleanor]

It's odd though,  isn't it,  that no accusations   ( or even mention )  of what, specifically,  was libelous in Amaral's book were made in court

The McCanns' lawyer made no attempt to show that what Amaral had written was not true  ( or libelous )  ...  she merely made the case for how much damage the book had caused to her clients and the search for their missing daughter

Similarly,  all the McCanns' witnesses  testified as to the level of damage the book had caused them,  and nothing else

As far as I could tell it was not established that the book had  'libelled'  the McCanns at all ...   I did not see where that was even attempted

The trial, so far,  has seemed,  to me,  to be all about the amount of damage it caused the McCanns

Did others see it differently  ?

The Judge can read, you know.  She will almost certainly have read his book and watched a lot of tele and videos.

Apart from that, she will have researchers who will have picked out the good bits for her to consider.

[icabodcrane]

The Judge can read, you know.  She will almost certainly have read his book and watched a lot of tele and videos.

Apart from that, she will have researchers who will have picked out the good bits for her to consider.

Yes yes Eleanor,   it's been said before that we don't  'know'   what the Judge may have been  privvy to in the way of written evidence  (  and that is true of course )  I am just pointing out that the evidence we  did  see presented in court was exclusively concerned with damages  ...  nothing at  all  about the book  being libelous

[Mr Gray]

It's odd though,  isn't it,  that no accusations   ( or even mention )  of what, specifically,  was libelous in Amaral's book were made in court

The McCanns' lawyer made no attempt to show that what Amaral had written was not true  ( or libelous )  ...  she merely made the case for how much damage the book had caused to her clients and the search for their missing daughter

Similarly,  all the McCanns' witnesses  testified as to the level of damage the book had caused them,  and nothing else

As far as I could tell it was not established that the book had  'libelled'  the McCanns at all ...   I did not see where that was even attempted

The trial, so far,  has seemed,  to me,  to be all about the amount of damage it caused the McCanns

Did others see it differently  ?

I see it exactly the same as you. It appears to me that the mccanns are making no attempt to prove libel wheras amaral is trying to prove he has not committed libel...this would indicate that the onus of proof is on amaral..

The mccanns are trying to show the extent of the damage caused to assess the level of damages...that's why I think amamral has effectively lost

[Eleanor]

Yes yes Eleanor,   it's been said before that we don't  'know'   what the Judge may have been  privvy to in the way of written evidence  (  and that is true of course )  I am just pointing out that the evidence we  did  see presented in court was exclusively concerned with damages  ...  nothing at  all  about the book  being libelous

A Hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to be libellous to be damaging or defamatory.  Amaral wrote a book, at least implying some very unpleasant things about The McCanns.  He did this to make money from a privileged position which was likely to be believed by those less able to use some common sense.

I am simply offended by the fact that he wrote the bloody book in the first place.

[icabodcrane]

A Hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to be libellous to be damaging or defamatory.  Amaral wrote a book, at least implying some very unpleasant things about The McCanns.  He did this to make money from a privileged position which was likely to be believed by those less able to use some common sense.

I am simply offended by the fact that he wrote the bloody book in the first place.

So if the McCanns are awarded damages it does not necessarily mean Amaral libelled them  ?

Is that what you're saying  ?

( genuine question ...  I find this whole trial baffling )

[slartibartfast]

So if the McCanns are awarded damages it does not necessarily mean Amaral libelled them  ?

Is that what you're saying  ?

( genuine question ...  I find this whole trial baffling )

That is my understanding.

[Eleanor]

So if the McCanns are awarded damages it does not necessarily mean Amaral libelled them  ?

Is that what you're saying  ?

( genuine question ...  I find this whole trial baffling )

It is the implied intent that matters.  As Judge Tugendhat told Anthony Bennett.

I know what Amaral was implying, and so do you.

[slartibartfast]

It is the implied intent that matters.  As Judge Tugendhat told Anthony Bennett.

I know what Amaral was implying, and so do you.

Tugendhat is in a different country.

[Eleanor]

Tugendhat is in a different country.

Irrelevant.  The Laws of Libel and Defamation are basically the same in any democratic country.

[icabodcrane]

It is the implied intent that matters.  As Judge Tugendhat told Anthony Bennett.

I know what Amaral was implying, and so do you.

He was not  'implying'  anything ...  he was directly saying what he believed happened to Madeleine

Either it was untrue  ( and therefore libelous )  or not

You have suggested that this case will not establish whether Amaral's book has libelled the McCanns whether they are awarded damages or not 

Or have I misunderstood  ? 

[ferryman]

A Hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to be libellous to be damaging or defamatory.  Amaral wrote a book, at least implying some very unpleasant things about The McCanns.  He did this to make money from a privileged position which was likely to be believed by those less able to use some common sense.

I am simply offended by the fact that he wrote the bloody book in the first place.

Not sure about that.

Certainly by English libel law, defamation is the umbrella term for two forms of damage to reputation: libel, which is a record in permanent form (such as writing) that is untrue and lowers reputation; and slander, which is a transient communication (such as the spoken word or a gesture) which also lowers reputation.

By the English definition of the term, Amaral's book is libel.

Is there a fundamental difference in Portuguese law?

[Eleanor]

He was not  'implying'  anything ...  he was directly saying what he believed happened to Madeleine

Either it was untrue  ( and therefore libelous )  or not

You have suggested that this case will not establish whether Amaral's book has libelled the McCanns whether they are awarded damages or not 

Or have I misunderstood  ?

Well that's an advance.  Unfortunately, belief can be Libellous and Defamatory.

The Judge will decide whether or not Amaral's book is Libellous.  Whether or not she believes he was just having a laugh to make money on the back of his failed and discredited investigation.

I don't care why he was sacked.  He was a disgrace in more ways than one.