So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Alfred R Jones]

Montclair, yesterday you wrote: "Furthermore, the judges ruled that the McCanns personal rights and good name were not damaged".



So, that being the case why is this a damages trial then?  Please explain.  What does the word "damages" mean exactly?  Can you be awarded damages when no damage has been found to have been caused?  I really think you need to address this point for us plebs so that we can understand what you're on about.

[stephen25000]

Excellent question.

I think, in a sense, this is a damages trial, but because libel has been, either established or admitted, and the purpose of continued proceedings is to determine damage arising from proven or admitted libel.

Where has libel been established or admitted ?

The crime type remains unknown.

[Alfred R Jones]

There can be no damages trial without damage having been legally established, unless I am very much mistaken.  Still waiting for Montclaire to clear that one up.

[ferryman]

There can be no damages trial without damage having been legally established, unless I am very much mistaken.  Still waiting for Montclaire to clear that one up.

Yep ...

[Montclair]

Libel has not been legally established despite your claims. You have not been able to prove that the courts have ruled the book and documentary libelous and it is in the courts where this decision is made, not in your posts. Don't ask me anymore, I'm tired of your refusal to understand.

[Alfred R Jones]

Libel has not been legally established despite your claims. You have not been able to prove that the courts have ruled the book and documentary libelous and it is in the courts where this decision is made, not in your posts. Don't ask me anymore, I'm tired of your refusal to understand.

Where do the damages come into it then?  Damages for what? 

[slartibartfast]

Where do the damages come into it then?  Damages for what?

Bearing in mind that it is a different legal system, contemplate this scenario, Fred is an ex-con with spent convictions going for a job. Bill knows that Fred is an ex-con and parades outside Fred's prospective place of work with a sandwich board saying Fred is an ex-con. Fred doesn't get the job. Bill hasn't committed an offence but caused damage to Fred.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm interested in this excerpt from the judgment:

The book that was written by the first defendant, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, presents a thesis that was at one time defended by several participants in the police investigation: that little Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents, here the first applicants, were suspected of concealing the cadaver.

It rather implies that the thesis has since been discarded by the PJ does it not?

[Alfred R Jones]

Bearing in mind that it is a different legal system, contemplate this scenario, Fred is an ex-con with spent convictions going for a job. Bill knows that Fred is an ex-con and parades outside Fred's prospective place of work with a sandwich board saying Fred is an ex-con. Fred doesn't get the job. Bill hasn't committed an offence but caused damage to Fred.

I think Bill probably has committed an offence.  I'm sure he could be done for something!

[Alfred R Jones]

What about if Bill believed that Fred was an ex-con but didn't have the proof that he was, and then put on his sandwich board outside Fred's place of work?  what then?

[slartibartfast]

What about if Bill believed that Fred was an ex-con but didn't have the proof that he was, and then put on his sandwich board outside Fred's place of work?  what then?

It has already been proved in court that he was...

[Alfred R Jones]

It has already been proved in court that he was...

How is that the same as the McCann case then?  They have not been proven guilty of any crime.

[Alfred R Jones]

What you seem to be suggesting is that, in Portugal, Bill could wear a placard stating that Fred is an ex-con and stand outside Fred's place of work and that would be perfectly legal, even if Fred wasn't actually an ex-con?  Am I understanding you correctly?

[slartibartfast]

Your analogy is all wrong, Bill = Amaral, Fred = the McCanns, yes?

I am talking about the difference between libel and damages.

[slartibartfast]

What you seem to be suggesting is that, in Portugal, Bill could wear a placard stating that Fred is an ex-con and stand outside Fred's place of work and that would be perfectly legal, even if Fred wasn't actually an ex-con?  Am I understanding you correctly?

No.