So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[stephen25000]

look up the definition of libel...libel has been established...the court will decide if amaral has any defence to the charge of libel...if you have read the witness statements...you will see that this is exactly what amaral has been trying to do...he has been trying to prove that his libellous statements are supported by the files...

No verdict has been reached in the case.

It is a libel trial.

The mccanns and the defendants, including Amaral, are now awaiting the final stages of the trial, before the judgement is made in due course.

Libel has not been proved dave until then, and that is not certain either.

You must really try and control your hatred of Amaral dave, and do try and remember there are other defendants in the trial.

[stephen25000]

Actually davel, provide proof that Amaral and the other defendants have committed libel in Portugal.

Note of course the book ban was overturned.

[Mr Gray]

Actually davel, provide proof that Amaral and the other defendants have committed libel in Portugal.

Note of course the book ban was overturned.

legal definition of libel...





a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.


Amaral has written a book that accuses the mccanns of criminal acts and has therefore committed libel

[Carana]

legal definition of libel...





a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.


Amaral has written a book that accuses the mccanns of criminal acts and has therefore committed libel

It doesn't seem that straightforward in PT, Davel.

[jassi]

that's not what the legal definition of libel says but of course you think you know better

So what happens in the case of someone bring a libel case  and losing? Was it libel or not?

[Mr Gray]

So what happens in the case of someone bring a libel case  and losing? Was it libel or not?

it was a libellous statement but the defendant had a defence..ie the statement was true

[jassi]

it was a libellous statement but the defendant had a defence..ie the statement was true

If the person was found not guilty of libel, then it cannot have been libel.

[Mr Gray]

So it wasn't libel.

definition of libel


Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.


So if I call amaral a disgraced cop.... that damages his reputation and is therefore by definition libellous...however...I have a defence...its true

[jassi]

definition of libel


Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.


So if I call amaral a disgraced cop.... that damages his reputation and is therefore by definition libellous...however...I have a defence...its true

Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted  to be false.

[Mr Gray]

I know you are a bit limited, but libel has to be proved.

Now, book a plane, trot off to Portugal , and accuse Amaral there.

Go on, GIVE IT A TRY.

I have given you a legal definition of libel that does not include anything about proof...can you supply one that does ?

[jassi]

So who decides that something is false?

[Mr Gray]

So who decides that something is false?

The default position of the mccanns is innocent so the allegation are false..

[Carana]

The default position of the mccanns is innocent so the allegation are false..

In the Murat appeal case, the presumption of innocence was a point in his favour.

[faithlilly]

Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted  to be false.

Of course it does.

[Carana]

Surely that's the point - it has to be proved, or admitted  to be false.

Murat won his case on appeal, and there was no way that he could prove a negative in terms of the allegations against him.

Now, whether or not that was because he was suing a newspaper is a point that I haven't been able to clarify.