So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Montclair]

Regarding the ward of the court issue, the McCanns have 30 days from the 21st, the date of the next session, to present the authorisation from the High Court to represent Madeleine in the court case. If they are unable to present this document, the case will continue with the parents and twins as the sole plaintiffs.

[Benice]

I wouldn't say the book is irrelevant, but its relevance is a malign one.

It encourages people to believe Madeleine is dead, and therefore harms the search for her.

The main damage done re this book is that people reading it were deliberately led to believe by the author that it was a first hand account written by the Lead Investigator who had had personal contact with the McCanns.    This would definitely influence people to believe the contents IMO.

Nothing could be further from the truth and I hope the fact that Amaral had never met or spoken to KM and only briefly met GM was made crystal clear to the judge. 

[DCI]

As regards Calpol.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol.html

and it includes what could happen with overdoses.

There was only one Calpol available in May 2007 and it did not contain any sedative. Night Calpol came out later.

Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009

Dear Madam/Sir

Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).

Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.

Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.


Yours sincerely

Johnson & Johnson Ltd

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd


http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1407-calpol-letter-from-johnson-johnson

[Anna]

There was only one Calpol available in May 2007 and it did not contain any sedative. Night Calpol came out later.

Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009

Dear Madam/Sir

Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).

Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.

Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.


Yours sincerely

Johnson & Johnson Ltd

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd


http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1407-calpol-letter-from-johnson-johnson

That is correct, DCI. It came onto the shelves in Sep 2007

[Carana]

Just to add a bit more confusion...

(I am a bit wary of comparing Murat's trial too closely to this one as there are quite a few differences.)

From Murat's appeal trial, talking about the initial ruling (not sure whether this the judge's ruling or whether that was part of the defence's submission):
Mas também, em rigor, e por outro lado, a própria consideração da matéria provada em sede de danos se mostra toda ela desnecessária, desde que, como assim se verifica na sentença recorrida, se julga que “não logrou o Autor provar um dos requisitos da responsabilidade civil que é desde logo o da ilicitude dos factos”, e “Não se vislumbra assim, qualquer ilicitude na conduta dos RR.”.
No domínio da responsabilidade civil por ato ilícito, não se verificando este, não ocorre aquela, cfr. art.º 483º, do Código Civil.

Perhaps Montclair or someone else could help if I've misunderstood this. The gist (referring to the initial ruling document) seems to be that Murat was unable to prove one of the requirements for incurring civil liability: the illicitness of the facts, and therefore the defendants' actions weren't deemed to be illicit.

So... off to see what Article 483 was about (from source posted earlier):

Article 483 of the Civil Code imposes civil liability on the authors of illicit facts. If a person
violates someone else’s rights or any legal rule that protects the interests of others with
prejudicial intention or negligently illicitly is obliged to compensate the harmed person for the
damage caused. Article 484 of the Civil Code also foresees liability for an offence against
somebody else’s reputation or good name.

What exactly is an "illicit fact"? Skimming through the Murat appeal, as far as I can gather, it seems to refer to statements of fact which were false; known to be false; had been inadequately researched as to their veracity; or had been obtained by illicit means.

Is Article 483 a sine qua non requirement? Or does it only apply if it is invoked by the plaintiff?

That raises quite a few questions...


If it's a sine qua non condition, how does that fit with the judge's reply to Gerry? Did she mean that it wasn't the right moment in the proceedings to raise such issues? Or that the case wouldn't be dealing with such issues at all?

Amaral seems to have stated various types of "facts": some reasonably accurately reflect the content of the files up until he left; others appear to be hearsay, and some of it doesn't appear to be in the publicly accessible files.

Does the mere fact that a piece of information is recorded in the files make it true? CdaM believed that they were covered by that in the Murat case, but then they weren't police officers whose job is to sort out reliable versus mistaken or malicious statements.

Then there is his interpretation of the "facts": some of it appears reasonable; some of it appears to be cherry-picked; some of it appears to have become exaggerated over time (cf some of his interviews) and some of it appears to be quite garbled.

A defence is honest mistakes made in good faith. However, at what point do honest mistakes / misunderstandings made in good faith stretch credulity, particularly from someone who the general public would assume to be a seasoned expert?

At what point during his interviews over time should he be reasonably expected to have read the files and informed the public of such mistakes or misinterpretations? If the defence is that his interviews only reflect the "facts" and his analysis until his departure, how clear is that for the majority of his readers / viewers several years later?

ETA: How much is acceptable as literary licence?

[ferryman]

Just to add a bit more confusion...

(I am a bit wary of comparing Murat's trial too closely to this one as there are quite a few differences.)

From Murat's appeal trial, talking about the initial ruling (not sure whether this the judge's ruling or whether that was part of the defence's submission):
Mas também, em rigor, e por outro lado, a própria consideração da matéria provada em sede de danos se mostra toda ela desnecessária, desde que, como assim se verifica na sentença recorrida, se julga que “não logrou o Autor provar um dos requisitos da responsabilidade civil que é desde logo o da ilicitude dos factos”, e “Não se vislumbra assim, qualquer ilicitude na conduta dos RR.”.
No domínio da responsabilidade civil por ato ilícito, não se verificando este, não ocorre aquela, cfr. art.º 483º, do Código Civil.

Perhaps Montclair or someone else could help if I've misunderstood this. The gist (referring to the initial ruling document) seems to be that Murat was unable to prove one of the requirements for incurring civil liability: the illicitness of the facts, and therefore the defendants' actions weren't deemed to be illicit.

So... off to see what Article 483 was about (from source posted earlier):

Article 483 of the Civil Code imposes civil liability on the authors of illicit facts. If a person
violates someone else’s rights or any legal rule that protects the interests of others with
prejudicial intention or negligently illicitly is obliged to compensate the harmed person for the
damage caused. Article 484 of the Civil Code also foresees liability for an offence against
somebody else’s reputation or good name.

What exactly is an "illicit fact"? Skimming through the Murat appeal, as far as I can gather, it seems to refer to statements of fact which were false; known to be false; had been inadequately researched as to their veracity; or had been obtained by illicit means.

Is Article 483 a sine qua non requirement? Or does it only apply if it is invoked by the plaintiff?

That raises quite a few questions...


If it's a sine qua non condition, how does that fit with the judge's reply to Gerry? Did she mean that it wasn't the right moment in the proceedings to raise such issues? Or that the case wouldn't be dealing with such issues at all?

Amaral seems to have stated various types of "facts": some reasonably accurately reflect the content of the files up until he left; others appear to be hearsay, and some of it doesn't appear to be in the publicly accessible files.

Does the mere fact that a piece of information is recorded in the files make it true? CdaM believed that they were covered by that in the Murat case, but then they weren't police officers whose job is to sort out reliable versus mistaken or malicious statements.

Then there is his interpretation of the "facts": some of it appears reasonable; some of it appears to be cherry-picked; some of it appears to have become exaggerated over time (cf some of his interviews) and some of it appears to be quite garbled.

A defence is honest mistakes made in good faith. However, at what point do honest mistakes / misunderstandings made in good faith stretch credulity, particularly from someone who the general public would assume to be a seasoned expert?

At what point during his interviews over time should he be reasonably expected to have read the files and informed the public of such mistakes or misinterpretations? If the defence is that his interviews only reflect the "facts" and his analysis until his departure, how clear is that for the majority of his readers / viewers several years later?

ETA: How much is acceptable as literary licence?

You would kind of expect that Amaral would know that the PJ (in common with police forces around the world!) take individual statements from witnesses.

So what is his excuse for saying that the Gaspars gave a joint statement?

Of course, the point is vital, because Mr G's statement and his wife's could scarcely be more different.

And however did Amaral conclude that Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and even hinted that Kate and Gerry might be responsible for their daughter's death?

That is either incompetence or attempt to mislead.

Does Portuguese libel law allow that degree of latitude to those accused of libel?

[Alice Purjorick]

Look on the bright side.
We may find out soomething tomorrow provided that:
The judge is not going to her granny's funeral.
One side or another hasn't fired a lawyer.
Everyone remembers to turn up.
One side or another on here doesn't blackball the translator.
Anyone for Lotto? 

[jassi]

You would kind of expect that Amaral would know that the PJ (in common with police forces around the world!) take individual statements from witnesses.

So what is his excuse for saying that the Gaspars gave a joint statement?

Of course, the point is vital, because Mr G's statement and his wife's could scarcely be more different.

And however did Amaral conclude that Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and even hinted that Kate and Gerry might be responsible for their daughter's death?

That is either incompetence or attempt to mislead.

Does Portuguese libel law allow that degree of latitude to those accused of libel?

Error in translation, no doubt.

[Brietta]

Day 14 Jan 21st 2015 for reading of proven facts.
    
    There is a possibility that “matter of facts" that the judge decided to consider isn’t going to be read publicly.

The norm is that in a civil trial the “matter of facts” isn’t publicly read but just released to the lawyers.

Public reading of the “matter of facts” is always read in penal trials.

Representatives will try to appear at court regardless.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm#14


These facts will form the basis of the judgement in February?

Wonder if the lawyers will be at liberty to release them publicly before then.

[sadie]

If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'

The book, along with constant accusations and lies on the internet made kate ill, really ill.  It showed in nher face and body.  That alone had an impact on her ability to take part in the search process.  Likewise Gerry and family must have spent time supporting Kate.  Time that they could have spent on the search.


The very fact that Amaral pronounced Madeleine dead, would also have affected the search.  Who would be so interested in looking for a dead child ?  A possibility of finding a living Madeleine is another proposition altogether. 


Remember, Amaral was the detective in Charge.  He wrote a very persuasive book.  People would believe his writings.  He was the lead detective FGS.

THink about it Faith.

[Benice]

Error in translation, no doubt.

There seem to be quite a number of errors in translation in his following interview - or could they be big fat lies?

For instance - Jane Tanner never claimed to have seen Murat at the scene - neither did she attend the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat - both claimed by Amaral in this interview in his desperation to discredit her.


Quote
Interview: Carlos Saraiva / Oscar Queiroz
snipped..........


Q.There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

A. That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

Who are they?

Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.

And how would you evaluate her testimony [Jane Tanner]?

As I said, she, at first, said she saw him at the scene. Then she began to retract it, saying that, after all, she had recognized him through an Indentikit picture. For several months, she came to recognize a number of people, through Identikit pictures. This speaks for itself about the credibility of her statements. Yet in the investigation there is a moment, a confrontation between the people previously mentioned, who say that Murat was there at the time the alarm was raised. That, and other things, is what has motivated the libel suit that Murat has brought against Ms. Tanner.

.......
Unquote

[DCI]

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699

Court reveals today proved matter against Gonçalo Amaral without presence of McCann's

Judge will proceed today to the statement of the facts that will be considered for the award of the process. Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros.

The court today reveals the matter proved at the trial of the case against former inspector Gonçalo Amaral by the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in May 2007, which will be absent from the session in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.

Judge Emilia Castro Melo and shall communicate the facts to be considered for the process of judgment, in which Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros to former Inspector of Judicial Police, for defamation and violation of rights and freedoms of the British family.

This action creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized

At issue is the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, in which the former coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation of Portimão Judicial Police defended the thesis that the parents of Madeleine McCann have been involved in the disappearance and in the child's corpse concealment.

Madeleine McCann disappeared after 4 years in the tourist village of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the family was on vacation.

[Jean-Pierre]

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=4353699

Court reveals today proved matter against Gonçalo Amaral without presence of McCann's

Judge will proceed today to the statement of the facts that will be considered for the award of the process. Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros.

The court today reveals the matter proved at the trial of the case against former inspector Gonçalo Amaral by the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in May 2007, which will be absent from the session in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.

Judge Emilia Castro Melo and shall communicate the facts to be considered for the process of judgment, in which Kate and Gerry McCann claim compensation of 1.2 million euros to former Inspector of Judicial Police, for defamation and violation of rights and freedoms of the British family.

This action creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized

At issue is the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, in which the former coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation of Portimão Judicial Police defended the thesis that the parents of Madeleine McCann have been involved in the disappearance and in the child's corpse concealment.

Madeleine McCann disappeared after 4 years in the tourist village of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the family was on vacation.

Thank you DCI.  We will have to see what actually transpires.

I do notice that Joana Morais (friend of Amaral) seems to be a bit grumpy, and has hidden her blog so that may be indicative.

Time will tell.

[DCI]

Thank you DCI.  We will have to see what actually transpires.

I do notice that Joana Morais (friend of Amaral) seems to be a bit grumpy, and has hidden her blog so that may be indicative.

Time will tell.

Yes, she said she's, "done with the case".  I wonder why?

[Jean-Pierre]

Yes, she said she's, "done with the case".  I wonder why?

Maybe "her work here is done.

Or maybe she is a bit fed up.

We shall soon see.