Could Scotland Yard's investigation influence the libel trial?

[Mr Gray]

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.

You need to tell amaral because all he has been doing is trying to prove his thesis in court...you are wrong

[Benice]

You need to tell amaral because all he has been doing is trying to prove his thesis in court...you are wrong

Unless there are masses of mistranslations in Amarals book - it is full of lies, lies by omission, and spiteful innuendo which can easily be proved by comparing his versions of events with the files. .

I believe'' innuendo'' is considered libellous in this country - whether it is in Portugal I don't know.

Also IMO the fact that he deliberately misleads his readers into believing  they are reading a first hand account is also extremely dishonest.

IMO the book can be proved to be libellous, but I don't see how it can be proved that it harmed the search for Madeline as how can you quantify that?

IMO the McCanns would be content just to have the book declared as libellous and are not bothered about any compensation.   The only reason they asked for £1,000,000 is because that is the estimated profit Amaral made and they object to him making a penny out of their daughter.    I can fully understand that.

Personally I find the whole Portuguese legal system totally bewildering and after seeing what happened in the Ciipriano case have very little faith that justice will be done in this case.

[Mr Gray]

Unless there are masses of mistranslations in Amarals book - it is full of lies, lies by omission, and spiteful innuendo which can easily be proved by comparing his versions of events with the files. .

I believe'' innuendo'' is considered libellous in this country - whether it is in Portugal I don't know.

Also IMO the fact that he deliberately misleads his readers into believing  they are reading a first hand account is also extremely dishonest.

IMO the book can be proved to be libellous, but I don't see how it can be proved that it harmed the search for Madeline as how can you quantify that?

IMO the McCanns would be content just to have the book declared as libellous and are not bothered about any compensation.   The only reason they asked for £1,000,000 is because that is the estimated profit Amaral made and they object to him making a penny out of their daughter.    I can fully understand that.

Personally I find the whole Portuguese legal system totally bewildering and after seeing what happened in the Ciipriano case have very little faith that justice will be done in this case.

the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.

[slartibartfast]

the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.

Or they missed the point.

[Wonderfulspam]

Or they missed the point.

Or they couldn't if they had to.

[Cornelius]

the fact is that no none on this forum really understands the libel laws in Portugal although some claim to. What we have seen in court is amaral calling witnesses to back up his theories so he is definitely trying to prove them.
we have not seen the McCanns trying to prove themselves innocent so it cannot be necessary.

But by your admission your knowledge of Portuguese libel law amount to three fifths of five eighths of FA.

[stephen25000]

But by your admission your knowledge of Portuguese libel law amount to three fifths of five eighths of FA.

As high as that ?

[Cornelius]

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!

The writ on behalf of the plaintiffs was against a legal person and two natural persons; Tal & Qual, the editor and the writer of the piece. Tal & Qual ceased to exist as a legal person by virtue of liquidation. The plaintiffs withdrew their action against the other parties.
They are the bald facts of what happened. Reasons etc don't affect what actually happened.

[Montclair]

No...in the UK the burden of proof would be on amaral...posters are making claims...as john has just done...that the mccans have to prove amaral wrong..I am asking does John know the law or is he just guessing

In Portugal, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means, that the McCanns must prove that Gonçalo Amaral committed libel or defamation.

[Montclair]

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.

Levy was not the only person who had access to the official police files. Anyone could have gone to Portimão Courthouse and requested them. According to Portuguese law, court decisions and police files are public so that citizens can see how investigations have been carried out, so there was nothing illegal about their being made public.

You seem to forget that the DVDs of the police files were made part of the hearing concerning the book ban despite Isabel Duarte's opposition.

[Mr Gray]

In Portugal, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means, that the McCanns must prove that Gonçalo Amaral committed libel or defamation.

It is plain to see amaral has libelled

[jassi]

It is plain to see amaral has libelled

That has not yet been determined by the Court.

[Mr Gray]

That has not yet been determined by the Court.

I am well aware of that and am speaking in general terms. what amaral has said would certainly be considered libellous in the UK. What we don't know is exactly how libel laws work in Portugal. From what we have seen of transcripts from the trial the McCanns have made no attempt to prove themselves innocent of any of the allegations made by amaral...that would imply that they don't have to. Amaral has brought witnesses to support his allegations which would imply that he has to prove his allegations are valid. the truth is no one really knows Portugal libel law in detail

[Anna]

I am well aware of that and am speaking in general terms. what amaral has said would certainly be considered libellous in the UK. What we don't know is exactly how libel laws work in Portugal. From what we have seen of transcripts from the trial the McCanns have made no attempt to prove themselves innocent of any of the allegations made by amaral...that would imply that they don't have to. Amaral has brought witnesses to support his allegations which would imply that he has to prove his allegations are valid. the truth is no one really knows Portugal libel law in detail

I believe the injured party has first to provide proof of the defamation by the accused and then the accused has to prove his innocence of the charge and provide proof of authenticity in the offending content. That is how I read it ,but happy to be corrected.

Some reading on PT Law........................


Portugal defamation laws
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://bocc.ubi.pt/pag/estado-portugues-codigo-penal.html

How it works in portugai
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://wsaraiva.com/2013/06/12/calunia-difamacao-e-injuria-os-crimes-contra-a-honra/

Broken down
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pt-BR&tl=en&u=http://static.publico.pt/nos/livro_estilo/25-fichas-l.html

[Cornelius]

As Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro repeatedly told witnesses appearing before her in the libel trial; it is her job and no one elses (unless she is replaced) to compare the book and the police files and rule whether or not the McCanns had been defamed