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

[Admin]

But if you are guilty then you deserve to be damaged, so shouldn't be able to get rewarded for being damaged.

People who abuse and cause suffering to others on for example, twitter, cannot use the excuse that their victim is guilty of a crime and so deserves it.  The law does not treat two crimes as one.

The police will prosecute the abuser irrespective of the victims status.

[jassi]

People who abuse and cause suffering to others on for example, twitter, cannot use the excuse that their victim is guilty of a crime and so deserves it.  The law does not treat two crimes as one.

The police will prosecute the abuser irrespective of the victims status.

That's not what I said. If you are guilty then you deserve what you get. 

[Admin]

That's not what I said. If you are guilty then you deserve what you get.

That's not how the law sees it.  People found guilty of a crime are prosecuted and sentenced, abusing them after the event is in itself punishable. 

[Mr Gray]

That's not how the law sees it.  People found guilty of a crime are prosecuted and sentenced, abusing them after the event is in itself punishable.

I'm not talking about abuse...this thread is more to do with libel...it's perfectly ok to refer to someone as a paedophile if they have been convicted...but its not ok to abuse them...

[stephen25000]

I'm not talking about abuse...this thread is more to do with libel...it's perfectly ok to refer to someone as a paedophile if they have been convicted...but its not ok to abuse them...

In what way is it libelous to say the mccanns were responsible for their children ?

Yet they claimed the apartment was a  fire risk, the reason for leaving the apartment  unlocked apparently.
and Madeleine disappeared, CAUSE UNKNOWN.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY  LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN BY THEMSELVES IN A FIRE RISK ?

[Mr Gray]

In what way is it libelous to say the mccanns were responsible for their children ?

Yet they claimed the apartment was a  fire risk, the reason for leaving the apartment  unlocked apparently.
and Madeleine disappeared, CAUSE UNKNOWN.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY  LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN BY THEMSELVES IN A FIRE RISK ?

oh dear...it's not libellous to say the mccanns were responsible for their children...please read up on libel law

[stephen25000]

oh dear...it's not libellous to say the mccanns were responsible for their children...please read up on libel law

That's where the case started.

They were the last people to see her alive.

NOTHING ELSE HAS EMERGED.

Amaral and his team followed a hypothesis which has not been disproved.

Accidental death in the apartment remains a valid hypothesis until proved otherwise.

[Matthew Wyse]

It is claimed by many that the lawsuit ongoing in Lisbon is not a libel action or a libel trial at all.

This civil lawsuit being brought by the McCann family and in the names of Kate, Gerry and the 3 children, claims €1.2 million in damages.   Damages which they argue arose from comments made by the former Portuguese police Coordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral. These comments it is claimed, took several forms, the spoken word given in interviews and the written word published in newspaper articles and in his own writings including the book, 'The truth of the lie'.

It is claimed that those comments caused damage to the family as individuals and also damaged the search for Madeleine. 

The question is, can you make comments which are damaging but which do not constitute a defamation regardless of whether it be spoken (slander) or written (libel)?


The comments made by Dr Amaral which form the basis of this lawsuit relate solely to the disappearance of Madeleine.  He claims a thesis or theory in which Kate and Gerry McCann are culpable in said disappearance.  In essence, Dr Amaral has promoted the opinion that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were involved in a cover-up including a conspiracy to promote a simulated abduction.

This theory by its very nature could be argued is a defamation.  However, in Law, a defamation must generally relate to a claim which is false.

Question is, can damages be awarded for comments, regardless of how distasteful and emotionally upsetting they are, which are true?

I don't believe the case is about libel at all since what Amaral claims cannot be proved one way or another.   For me it is about causing pain and distress and that is why damages are being sought.  The claim that Amaral damaged the search will be for ever known as a false flag.

[faithlilly]

I don't believe the case is about libel at all since what Amaral claims cannot be proved one way or another.   For me it is about causing pain and distress and that is why damages are being sought.  The claim that Amaral damaged the search will be for ever known as a false flag.

Of course it was. It was simply a way of justifying the use of the fund for their litigation.

[Mr Gray]

I don't believe the case is about libel at all since what Amaral claims cannot be proved one way or another.   For me it is about causing pain and distress and that is why damages are being sought.  The claim that Amaral damaged the search will be for ever known as a false flag.

Another one who doesn't understand the law...what can or cannot be proved is not relevant

[Mr Gray]

Of course it was. It was simply a way of justifying the use of the fund for their litigation.

Amaral on course for total humiliation....the judge has made it clear

[ferryman]

Are you completely devoid of reason or logic ?

 %£&)**# &%&£(+ %£&)**# &%&£(+

This worship of the mccanns and hatred of Amaral, merely reinforces peoples conclusions about you.

What do people conclude about you from the fact that you worship Amaral and are filled with enmity and hatred for the McCanns?

[John]

Knowing what we now do, was Luz on the money sort of speak?

Criminal Law (Private Law) v.s. Civil Law (Common Law)

The First Trial over the book "Truth about the lie" was about defamation, damage of personality rights (image, good, name, honour,...) versus freedom of expression - 2 of the most important constitutional rights in Portuguese Law, and it fell within the parameters of Criminal Law. After all the levels of decision were followed, the Supreme Court decided towards the legitimacy of Freedom of Expression, considering the book didn't harm any private rights since, according to Portuguese Law, what it expressed was publicly available in the process case files.

The present Trial is about financial compensation for "alleged" damages caused by certain documents (book, CD, TV documentary). This is Civil Law, and it is common if you are about to present a court case for damages to ask for a cautionary arrest of the property of the individuals/organizations against which you are going to make such demand. It happens with private persons and with organizations all the time (so to speak).

What some people in here don't seem to grab is that this is not a "LIBEL" case - that has already been tried and the McCann lost - book, TV documentary & CD were not libelous. - This is about compensation pure and simple.
If you request to be compensated for a damage suffered you have to present unequivocal proof that such damages occurred. From the first sessions in Court I find it difficult to say the McCann have a case.

This is not a case where McCann being suspects or not have any relevance; this is not a case where previous trial courts where Amaral was present has relevance,...this is about the McCann demanding Amaral to pay them for "sufferings" they have to prove.

I know some people would prefer to wrap it all in the same package but that is not how the law works.

[Alice Purjorick]

Knowing what we now do, was Luz on the money sort of speak?

In the gold at least if not the inner 

[Mr Gray]

Knowing what we now do, was Luz on the money sort of speak?

the trial is about damages which includes damage to reputation...libel