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

[Eleanor]

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?

I shouldn't think so.

[jassi]

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.

Dear me. He really has got up your nose   

[Eleanor]

Dear me. He really has got up your nose   

Too right he did.  Have you seen him on television lying in his teeth?

His wife spouting off about about what bad Catholics The McCanns are, while they were both committing adultery, cheating Amaral's Brother , and then getting a Divorce.

[jassi]

Too right he did.  Have you seen him on television lying in his teeth?

His wife spouting off about about what bad Catholics The McCanns are, while they were both committing adultery, cheating Amaral's Brother , and then getting a Divorce.

Why should this be any of your concern?

[Eleanor]

Why should this be any of your concern?

Hypocricy, that's what.  I can be offended by hypocrites if I feel like it.  What concern of yours is that?

[jassi]

Hypocricy, that's what.  I can be offended by hypocrites if I feel like it.  What concern of yours is that?

None at all - merely that other people's motives fascinate me.

[gilet]

A simple question. Could an "expert" on this case, such as one of those people who have actually been present at the trial maybe, outline in clear Portuguese and English the precise statute under which Amaral has been taken to court. I am assuming that anyone who makes it their business to attend such a trial would make strident efforts to become familiar with the details of the case and the specific laws which it is alleged have been broken.

If they prefer they could give the reference number of the relevant statute.

Then we can more easily determine what this trial is possibly going to achieve for the McCanns and what the outcome is likely to be for Amaral.

To be frank, I am very disappointed that neither Luz nor Anne Guedes (the supposed forum expert on this trial but who, while logging in daily it seems, has chosen to take a vow of silence on the matter for the last three months) after more than thirty pages of discussion, have referred members of the forum to the full charges in Portuguese or English, to the statutes which underpin the trial , to any site where judgements from trials are posted in Portugal, to the site where upcoming trials dates are posted in Portugal, all of which would give a clearer picture of precisely what is going on.

I am equally shocked that, whoever has been responsible for them, so many short-notice delays have been allowed in the trial with little explanation. Justice should be seen to be done in a democratic state and it most certainly is not at the moment being seen to be done in this case.

[Silkywhiskers]

None of it matters.

Blind Freddy can see the "trial" has been suspended pending further investigation.

NO ONE can rule "libel" until we know the truth....I don't know why this keeps escaping Team McCann.....

[John]

Isabel Duarte has no need to call witnesses since the libel is allegedly contained within the book and the DVD.  It has been seen that many of the defence witnesses have claimed that the book and the DVD mirrored the police investigation up until the point when Amaral was removed from the investigation. Clearly therefore, the defence is making the case that what is contained within the book and the DVD was based on investigative knowledge and as such does not constitute a libel.

The damages claim relates to the psychological and emotional damage caused by the book to the family and the further claim that it impeded the search for Madeleine.

[Eleanor]

Isabel Duarte has no need to call witnesses since the libel is allegedly contained within the book and the DVD.  It has been seen that many of the defence witnesses have claimed that the book and the DVD mirrored the police investigation up until the point when Amaral was removed from the investigation. Clearly therefore, the defence is making the case that what is contained within the book and the DVD was based on investigative knowledge and as such does not constitute a libel.

The damages claim relates to the psychological and emotional damage caused by the book to the family and the further claim that it impeded the search for Madeleine.

Amaral was no longer involved with the investigation when the book was released, and the final report found that there was nothing to implicate The McCanns.
The book remains only Amaral's opinion.  But then Libel and Defamation are always only opinions, unless they are malicious, which is even worse.

[stephen25000]

Amaral was no longer involved with the investigation when the book was released, and the final report found that there was nothing to implicate The McCanns.
The book remains only Amaral's opinion.  But then Libel and Defamation are always only opinions, unless they are malicious, which is even worse.

'type of crime unknown'.

Amaral's thesis shared by many others..................

[Mr Gray]

You only need to look at the witness statements for each side to understand exactly whats going on

[ferryman]

 Clearly therefore, the defence is making the case that what is contained within the book and the DVD was based on investigative knowledge and as such does not constitute a libel.

Bogus case.

Amaral's depiction of the investigation (up to the point that he left it) is a sufficient departure from the truth to be, at best, an incompetent depiction or, at worst, a fraudulent one.

The judge's question about whether there are any "revelations" in the book was very much damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If there are revelations in the book, germane information was withheld from the (shelved) enquiry.

And if there are not revelations in the book, Amaral lied!

The truth is that there is much in the book not in the files, and Amaral's departures (from the files) are fabrications and falsehoods.

That ought to bode ill (for him) concerning the outcome of the trial.

[Eleanor]

The Title alone is a lie.

[stephen25000]

Well, take a look at this.

http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html



Interesting to say the least. >@@(*&)

'Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.


The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates. '