So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Albertini]

Now I'm the one in fits of laughter ...

No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.

The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.

Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?

[Albertini]

Aren't defence teams for defendants?

Apologies Freiudan slip due to posting on a phone rather than my laptop.

You know my meaning though, right?

[Alfred R Jones]

No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.

The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.

Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?

Do you have a transcript of the 2011 appeal against the reversal of the injunction?

[ferryman]

Aren't defence teams for defendants?

In civil actions, they are generally referred to as respondents.

[Alfred R Jones]

Apologies Freiudan slip due to posting on a phone rather than my laptop.

You know my meaning though, right?

I know that most sceptics tend to think of the McCanns as the defendants in this case for some reason, yes.

[Albertini]

Kate's book

Devastatingly, by the autumn, everything had flipped again.  On 19 October 2010 we were hit from a bolt from the blue.  Clarence was told by a Sun reporter that yet another decision from the appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban on sale of Amaral's book and DVD (decision 5).  We hadn't been aware that another judgment was about to be made and neither was our lawyer.  The broadside just came from nowhere.  How many appeals was Amaral going to be allowed?  How could other judges come along and overturn a decision made by 3 courts before them?

(There's more)

Then here's the nub:

In a 6th decision in 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected.

Page 426 (paperback)

Kate McCann.

The injustice of it all!!

So why havent they fought for this injustice to be overturned?

Can't be that much of an injustice then can it if you're not prepared to fight to get it overtunred.

[Albertini]

I know that most sceptics tend to think of the McCanns as the defendants in this case for some reason, yes.

Not in this case Alfred. A simple slip due to posting on my phone. It's more difficult to review and check on the phone.

[Eleanor]

So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?

Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it.  And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.

[Alice Purjorick]

Re; the bit in bold above - well it was allowed and that should give you some pause for thought.  There must be a reason as I said to John earlier, otherwise the judge would have thrown it out before it ever got off the ground.  So, why has it been allowed to proceed, and for so long?

Well now! Do we know the terms of the original writ? er no. Do we know that the terms of the writ were not changed subsequent to the Supreme Court judgement? er no.That is a shame because it may give us a clue what it is really about.
As I recall the part of the writ published in the Daily Mirror dealt mostly with damages for Kate and Gerry McCann and their three children even down to the amounts claimed by each plaintiff (sadly I can't find the thing right now but surely someone on here has it?) because of the emotional pain and suffering the book had caused to them. I stand to be corrected but I do not see in this instance that libel and general damages are mutually dependent. That is, the Supreme Court may rule that the book was not libelous but a claim for general damages was permissible by virtue of Dr Amaral putting his interpretation on the evidence available?

[ferryman]

Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it.  And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.

Is right.

It was a question of whether that part of the Portuguese constitution that allows free speech should hold sway, or whether it should be the right of citizens to a good name.

One guarantee of the Portuguese constitution (or the other) had to give way.

[Eleanor]

No you're not really you're trying to perform a come back because you've made a bit of a wally of yourself on this thread.

The point is that these alleged discrepancies of yours have never been brought forward by your beloved McCann's legal team.

Don't you ever sometimes sit there and wonder why that could possibly be?

More unnecessary insults.  What is wrong with your considered opinion?  It sounds alright to me without the insults.

[Albertini]

Those were not their remit in so far as I understand it.  And I have never had a problem with them lifting the ban, since Libel, or Defamation hadn't been proved, and wasn't the question anyway.

But wouldn't finding out if the book was inaccurate form a mightily significant basis on whether the book should remain banned rather than stating it was a valid interpretation?

Strikes me as being a pretty fundamental part of that case.

[Albertini]

More unnecessary insults.  What is wrong with your considered opinion?  It sounds alright to me without the insults.

Really? I fail to see the insult there Eleanor.

Do you not accept a forum member in a different country to the trial should be able to proclaim that senior judges with many year of legal experience were wrong and he is right?

It does the forum no favours to allow such hokum to be be bandied about  as a statement of fact.

It opens the forum up to ridicule.

And actually when things are ok between the relevant sides it's probably the best forum for both sides to discuss the issues.

[Albertini]

Is right.

It was a question of whether that part of the Portuguese constitution that allows free speech should hold sway, or whether it should be the right of citizens to a good name.

One guarantee of the Portuguese constitution (or the other) had to give way.

How many times do you need to be shown the wording of the judgement before you stop perpetuating this falsehood?

How can it be about what holds sway when the judges stated categorically  their rights weren't offended?

For heavens sake.

[Eleanor]

But wouldn't finding out if the book was inaccurate form a mightily significant basis on whether the book should remain banned rather than stating it was a valid interpretation?

Strikes me as being a pretty fundamental part of that case.

It was an Injunction, possibly hastily given, without due consideration.  It was intended to limit any further damage, as The Judge saw it.

However, you have to admit that it worked, even if The McCanns did lose that particular Point of Law.  And that is all it was.  A Point of Law.