So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Alfred R Jones]

Dearie me.  Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.

[Carana]

Dearie me.  Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.

I didn't quite understand why the issue of libelling Madeleine came up. I was just pointing out to Stephen that libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal, whereas it isn't in the UK.

The main issue for Madeleine isn't about "libel" as such, but whether asserting that she's dead with no supporting evidence beyond the unexplained say-so of a Springer spaniel has affected her right to be found (alive, or even possibly deceased).

[stephen25000]

Dearie me.  Stating as fact that Madeleine's body was placed in the Scenic does not libel Madeleine it libels her parents as any fule no.

Perhaps Alfred you can provide the evidence that there wasn't any possibility of a dead body being in the apartment.

As to the car, the possibility of secondary transfer could exist.

[Alfred R Jones]

I didn't quite understand why the issue of libelling Madeleine came up. I was just pointing out to Stephen that libelling the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal, whereas it isn't in the UK.

The main issue for Madeleine isn't about "libel" as such, but whether asserting that she's dead with no supporting evidence beyond the unexplained say-so of a Springer spaniel has affected her right to be found (alive, or even possibly deceased).

Re: the bit in bold - yes I know Carana, my exasperation was not with you. 

If Amaral has stated that it is a fact that that Madeleine's body was put in the Scenic then this is a totally unsubstantiated allegation and is libellous.  Under no circumstances in a civilised  and fair society could it be considered fair comment. 

[Mr Gray]

Re: the bit in bold - yes I know Carana, my exasperation was not with you. 

If Amaral has stated that it is a fact that that Madeleine's body was put in the Scenic then this is a totally unsubstantiated allegation and is libellous.  Under no circumstances in a civilised  and fair society could it be considered fair comment.

not according to Stephen it aint

[Carana]

A different issue concerning the differences between PT and UK law on this is that, unlike the UK, in civil defamation suits, as in other civil liability cases, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff. Exceptions are when there is a legal presumption. (I'm sure there is a thread on this in here somewhere or other.)

In Murat's appeal case, the ruling was that one applied (which seemingly hadn't been taken into account in the initial trial), as he was suing a newspaper, i.e., press laws applied.

I have no idea whether this presumption would apply in this case or not.

ETA

   I - Em matéria de responsabilidade civil, por ofensa do crédito e do bom nome, o ónus da prova cabe ao lesado, limitado à existência das imputações ofensivas dos bens em causa.

(...)

VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.

http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument


There's more on defamation here (in English), starting on p. 121:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf

[ferryman]

A different issue concerning the differences between PT and UK law on this is that, unlike the UK, in civil defamation suits, as in other civil liability cases, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff. Exceptions are when there is a legal presumption. (I'm sure there is a thread on this in here somewhere or other.)

In Murat's appeal case, the ruling was that one applied (which seemingly hadn't been taken into account in the initial trial), as he was suing a newspaper, i.e., press laws applied.

I have no idea whether this presumption would apply in this case or not.

ETA

   I - Em matéria de responsabilidade civil, por ofensa do crédito e do bom nome, o ónus da prova cabe ao lesado, limitado à existência das imputações ofensivas dos bens em causa.

(...)

VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.

http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument


There's more on defamation here (in English), starting on p. 121:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf

Interesting but a long read.

I will return to that.

Thank you for posting it.

[Albertini]

Gonçalo Amaral
Former Polícia Judiciária coordinator

 00.33 - My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I’ve been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, on the 3rd of May 2007.

 00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

 00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.

VC Filmes presents

Maddie The Truth of the Lie





I don't believe the appeal court judges are wrong...I believe that some of the statements that have been attributed to them are not their statemnets

So why haven't the McCann's had the judgement (for which Im sure they have many copies) correctly translated  and distributed through their internet monitors?

Because the one translated and freely available now is pretty damning against them.

Why wouldn't they seek to have the "right" judgement out in the public domain?

[Mr Gray]

So why haven't the McCann's had the judgement (for which Im sure they have many copies) correctly translated  and distributed through their internet monitors?

Because the one translated and freely available now is pretty damning against them.

Why wouldn't they seek to have the "right" judgement out in the public domain?

Because it is of no importance...that's why their lawyers didn't contest it. How many people would you estimate have read the online judgement

[Mr Gray]

This is copied from the translated judgement...

The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.

In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"

In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.

"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:

• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;

• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;

• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.



Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors

[Alice Purjorick]

This is copied from the translated judgement...

The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.

In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"

In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.

"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:

• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;

• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;

• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.



Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors

Or maybe the judges were quoting in abbreviation that which was written in the archiving report, viz:
<<< snip>>>

"From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
 
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);"
<<< snip >>>

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi6

[Mr Gray]

Or maybe the judges were quoting in abbreviation that which was written in the archiving report, viz:
<<< snip>>>

"From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
 
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);"
<<< snip >>>

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi6

What you are implying is that the judges gave their OWN INTERPRETATION of the report. Grime confirmed that the dogs alerted but did not confirm that the alert was to cadaver odour...Grime's the expert but what you are suggesting is that the judges have made comments on the alerts that Grime has not endorsed

[Montclair]

This is copied from the translated judgement...

The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.

In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"

In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.

"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:

• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;

• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;

• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.



Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors

Why do you insist? Give it a rest. The statements in red are from the judges' ruling whether you want to believe it or not.

[Mr Gray]

Why do you insist? Give it a rest. The statements in red are from the judges' ruling whether you want to believe it or not.

I never said they were not from the ruling...read the post again...but who was the author. As I have said if they were the judges words...then the judges were wrong...fact.

[Montclair]

I never said they were not from the ruling...read the post again...but who was the author. As I have said if they were the judges words...then the judges were wrong...fact.

I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.