Could Scotland Yard's investigation influence the libel trial?

[Cornelius]

read the post again its self explanatory

So you include yourself in the "don't know gee from haw" when it comes to Portuguese libel laws?
Now I understand.

[John]

In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.

Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.

What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.

Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain.  He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation.  To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.

[Mr Gray]

In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.

Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.

What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.



Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain.  He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation.  To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.

So are you saying that the Mcanns have to prove themselves innocent to win the libel trial..I ask you again..is this just your opinion or do you have definite knowledge...you have continually avoided answering the question..

I happen to think from what I have seen that amaral IS a fool..if he is in such a strong position why has he run away for so long

[Carana]

Where does the burden of proof lie in Portuguese libel claims...does amaral have to prove he is right or do the mcccanns have to prove he is wrong...do you really  know the answer

The Murat PT libel case was interesting... but only won on appeal.

[sadie]

In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.

Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.

What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.

Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain.  He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation.  To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.

But he hasn't got any evidence, John

Nothing !

He misunderstood the dog alerts.

[John]

The burden of proof is with the Plaintiff in Portugal, in the UK it is with the Defender.  Duarte therefore has her work cut out for her while the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance remain undetermined.

[Mr Gray]

The burden of proof is with the Plaintiff in Portugal, in the UK it is with the Defender.  Duarte therefore has her work cut out for her while the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance remain undetermined.

where have you got this information from..how familiar are you with Portuguese law...I feel you are just repeating things you have read on forums

[ferryman]

In Portuguese criminal libel cases defamation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but in civil libel cases a defence of within the bounds of probability will prevail.

Central to the present libel action is the book 'The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCann's argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.

What is being contested is not only Amaral’s opinions, but his right to express them publicly, it is consequently a freedom of expression issue in Portugal.


Amaral is no fool, he knows that his thesis was based on official police files which are in the public domain.  He need only repeat his claim that on the balance of probabilities that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz in order to repel the allegation of defamation.  To counter this the plaintiff has to provide proof that this claim is untrue, something which their lawyer has summarily failed to do so far.

Amaral must do much more than that.

In the light of clear, documented evidence to the contrary, he must prove that the official record is wrong and he is right about Harrison's alleged role in the enquiry.

If the McCanns and Amaral have Stuart Prior's report, he must be able to show by reference to that report that he (Amaral) contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic evidence, then sent Prior away with a flea in his ear to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.

He must show where, in the files, it is stated that Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer who asked her where her daughter was.

He must prove that the McCanns set up a fraudulent fund in their (deceased) daughter's name.

He must prove that by propagating the theory as if "fact" that Madeleine is dead, he has not discouraged the search for Madeleine by encouraging the belief (and outright declaring as if fact) that she is dead.

And so on ...

[John]

You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman.   Amaral doesn't have to prove anything.  The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon.  Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.

Remember too that we have been here before.  The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".  The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.

They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.  It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.

If Amaral's contention is that on the balance of probability the McCanns were involved, then he will have a good chance of successfully defended the action against him and if he prevails he would be entitled to financial reparation.

[ferryman]

You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman.   Amaral doesn't have to prove anything.  The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon.  Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.

Remember too that we have been here before.  The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".  The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.

They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.  It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.

Partially right ...

The couple were suing weekly the tabloid Tal & Qual over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
The front page story caused a sensation around the world, as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
This week the couple, from Rothley, Leics, withdrew their defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.
It could argue the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.
The source said the McCanns want to concentrate instead on their £1 million case against Goncalo Amaral, the former head of the Madeleine investigation.
They also suspect Amaral may have been behind the story in Tal & Qual, which has since folded.
The source said: "The libel action against Tal & Qual has been dropped for a number of reasons. Firstly, the newspaper went bust some time ago.
"Secondly Tal & Qual could probably have mounted a defence, as they were reporting what a certain police officer believed at the time.
"Kate and Gerry have been advised it is much better to go for the source of the story.
"When the story first came out it was a huge shock for Kate and Gerry and they did not believe it was true."
The Tal & Qual article was published three months after Madeleine went missing during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve.
It claimed that detectives believed the parents had either caused a fatal accident or had given drugs to their daughter.
Lawyers representing the McCanns filed a writ against the newspaper, its editor Emidio Fernando, and reporter Catarina Vaz Guerreiro.
But two weeks later the couple, both doctors, were sensationally named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in the case.
Deluded chief investigator Goncalo Amaral wrongly believed they had covered up their three-year-old daughter´s death, even though there was no evidence to support his theory.
He was later taken off the case, which was eventually archived and remains unsolved.
In July 2008 the McCanns were cleared of any wrongdoing in a formal report by Portugal´s Attorney General Jose Pinto Monteiro.
They have always believed their daughter was abducted.
Mr Fernando said: "I had total faith in the source and was certain the police were looking at the couple.
"It's not a victory, because I never saw this as a war. I was, as I am today, totally calm about what I wrote."
Gerry and Kate McCann´s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This is a matter for Kate and Gerry´s lawyers in consultation with Kate and Gerry, of course."
Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims.
The McCanns are suing him for at least £1 million for defamation and for breaching their human rights.
They have employed one of Portugal´s leading libel lawyers, Isabel Duarte, in a case expected to be heard in Lisbon next summer.
If they win they will use the money to continue the search for Madeleine, who would now be six.
The Find Madeleine Fund, set up to finance the couple's worldwide search for their daughter, is expected to run out of money by the end of the year, it was reported this week.
The McCanns also plan to sue the group behind a leaflet blaming them for Madeleine´s disappearance.
The couple were "deeply upset" by the fliers, produced by a group called the "Madeleine Foundation", which has accused them of neglect.
The leaflets were received by 10,000 people in the McCann's home village of Rothley

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6057918/McCanns-drop-libel-case-against-Portuguese-newspaper.html

They went for Amaral rather than the paper, which also went bust!

[ferryman]

You are confusing UK Law with Portuguese Law ferryman.   Amaral doesn't have to prove anything.  The burden is with the Plaintiff as has already been evidenced in proceedings in Lisbon.  Amaral need only defend against the Plaintiff's own allegations on a point by point basis.

Remember too that we have been here before.  The McCann's sued weekly tabloid Tal & Qual and two journalists over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".  The front page story caused a sensation around the world as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.

They subsequently withdrew the defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.  It could be argued that the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.

If Amaral persists that on the balance of probability, that the McCanns were involved, then he will have successfully defended the action against him and would be entitled to financial reparation.

I am not confusing anything.  The proof is implicit in the evidence of the files. 

Amaral must refute what is written in the files

[misty]

We have all seen what is in the files which were illegally leaked to the public by Levy. Amaral's book is an edited version of the files. Does anyone know - would the judge have been granted access to the full files including all the unreleased material Amaral would have been privilege to, and would the McCanns lawyer been permitted the same right? If not, I cannot see how the position has changed since the McCanns failed to get the book banned.

[ferryman]

We have all seen what is in the files which were illegally leaked to the public by Levy. Amaral's book is an edited version of the files. Does anyone know - would the judge have been granted access to the full files including all the unreleased material Amaral would have been privilege to, and would the McCanns lawyer been permitted the same right? If not, I cannot see how the position has changed since the McCanns failed to get the book banned.

Both edited and highly corrupted (by Amaral in his book) I would say.

And I think we can be confident that, certainly the prosecutors, have seen all the reports we don't see.

For example, The Express got hold of Lee Rainbow's report, which has never appeared with the rest of the files that appear on-line.

I think the judges will have seen everything.

[jassi]

Both edited and highly corrupted (by Amaral in his book) I would say.

And I think we can be confident that, certainly the prosecutors, have seen all the reports we don't see.

For example, The Express got hold of Lee Rainbow's report, which has never appeared with the rest of the files that appear on-line.

I think the judges will have seen everything.

So you will be happy with the decision, whatever it is ? 

[John]

As I stated earlier, Dr Amaral doesn't have to prove anything, that burden under Portuguese Libel Law lies firmly with the McCann's lawyer Isabel Duarte.  In the absence of any evidence pertaining to Madeleine's fate and whereabouts however I think she will struggle.