Could Scotland Yard's investigation influence the libel trial?

[Mr Gray]

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.

the headline was... "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".

No wonder they decided to withdraw the writ...they had no defence as the statement was true

[Mr Gray]

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

That's an interesting statement and confirms my view that the McCanns do not have to prove anything...the judge can decide simply by comparing the book and the files...no burden of proof on the McCanns

[John]

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

I don't recall any of his witnesses referring to any specific aspect of his thesis and I edited and proof read every transcript at least twice.  The only mention ever made of the hypothesis or thesis and restated by several of Amaral's witnesses was that it reflected the PJ investigation up until the point when Amaral was taken off the case.
 
ETA  If I recall correctly, the judge wouldn't entertain any comment directly related to the McCann's culpability.

[Cornelius]

My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.

[Mr Gray]

My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.

Do you remember what the judge said when paivia, I think it was ...gave evidence. She said on the front of the book it says ...something like..."new revelations" the judge was quite scathing about it...rather scuppers your argumant

[Mr Gray]

My perception was that Dr Amaral was trying to demonstrate that what he said in his book was already in the public domain in that the case files had been released and were available for public scrutiny. His case revolved around there being nothing in the book that as not in the released case file documents.

 There you are... I understand MC is the judge...


MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this book?
RP Compared to the investigation, nothing.

The Judge seizes the book, on her desk, and waves it in the direction of the screen.

MC – Doesn't the cover say it has unique revelations?
TVI's lawyer says "no".

The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.

RP answers that there is nothing new in the book.



MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?
RP mumbles.

MC – Is there or is there not?
RP mumbles.

MC insists again and again RP mumbles.
MC – Then there are no revelations?


There is a few seconds silence, like a relief after a tension.

[Wonderfulspam]

There you are... I understand MC is the judge...


MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this book?
RP Compared to the investigation, nothing.

The Judge seizes the book, on her desk, and waves it in the direction of the screen.

MC – Doesn't the cover say it has unique revelations?
TVI's lawyer says "no".

The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.

RP answers that there is nothing new in the book.



MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?
RP mumbles.

MC – Is there or is there not?
RP mumbles.

MC insists again and again RP mumbles.
MC – Then there are no revelations!


There is a few seconds silence, like a relief after a tension.

The judge has a sense of humor, there are no revelations.

Just some misleading advertising on the cover.

[Mr Gray]

The judge has a sense of humor, there are no revelations.

Just some misleading advertising on the cover.

I think you and amaral work on the theory hat if one lie doesn't work...try two

[Cornelius]

Do you remember what the judge said when paivia, I think it was ...gave evidence. She said on the front of the book it says ...something like..."new revelations" the judge was quite scathing about it...rather scuppers your argumant

Hardly! the judge effectively said there were no new revelations in the book and as I said earlier the judge made it quite clear whose job it was to compare and rule. I don't recall her saying it was your job. Unless of course you are Judge Maria in mufti

[John]

One has to remember that new revelations mean different things to different people. As stated, the Amaral position is that the book simply reflected the investigation up until his enforced departure.   

[ferryman]

One has to remember that new revelations mean different things to different people. As stated, the Amaral position is that the book simply reflected the investigation up until his enforced departure.

A small snag.

It didn't (and doesn't) ...

[Mr Gray]

Hardly! the judge effectively said there were no new revelations in the book and as I said earlier the judge made it quite clear whose job it was to compare and rule. I don't recall her saying it was your job. Unless of course you are Judge Maria in mufti

the judge asked the question ...therefore she did not know the answer...keep dreaming

[ferryman]

It was a damned if you do and damned if you don't question.

If there were revelations in the book, Amaral withheld information from the original enquiry.

And if there weren't, Amaral lied ...