So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Mr Gray]

It's very simple, even for you.

Where does it say in the Portuguese Court, libel trial?

so which libel trial were you referring to...

[stephen25000]

so which libel trial were you referring to...

Where does it say libel trial in the Portuguese court , as regards of the mccanns pursuit for money dave ?

[Alice Purjorick]

So now you have shifted...Stephen said it was not a libel trial.....Montclair has said libel has been thrown out..there may well be other issues but libel is at the heart of this trial...Stephen and Montclair are wrong..whichever way to try to spin it.....

plus....the ruling overturning the injunction was just that....it did not rule on libel

I am not interested in what Stephen said or what Montclair said. I have asked perfectly straightforward questions which no one seems capable of answering. They ain't trick questions.
The main thrust of my original posts was:
If one has not had sight of the writ one cannot make any informed statement what it is about.
We know the children's names are on the writ.
If the children are suing for libel how have they been libeled?
Can the children claim damages on the basis that their parents have been libeled?
Or are the children claiming damages for some kind of loss or injury resulting from the publication of the book videos etc?
It would seem to me the case is more than just libel.
Any takers to give a reasoned response to the questions posed?

[Mr Gray]

I am not interested in what Stephen said or what Montclair said. I have asked perfectly straightforward questions which no one seems capable of answering. They ain't trick questions.
The main thrust of my original posts was:
If one has not had sight of the writ one cannot make any informed statement what it is about.
We know the children's names are on the writ.
If the children are suing for libel how have they been libeled?
Can the children claim damages on the basis that their parents have been libeled?
Or are the children claiming damages for some kind of loss or injury resulting from the publication of the book videos etc?
It would seem to me the case is more than just libel.
Any takers to give a reasoned response to the questions posed?

so we agree that this trial is at least in part about libel, but there are other factors involved which no one at present really understands...but all we be revealed next month

[Carana]

It seems to be a mixture:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg206213#msg206213

[ferryman]

so we agree that this trial is at least in part about libel, but there are other factors involved which no one at present really understands...but all we be revealed next month

In my opinion, fully about libel, determined or admitted at the point Santos made his plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

I think court proceedings are to assess damage arising from proven or established libel.

In doubt is, not the result, but the level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.

[stephen25000]

I see that Anne G., has kept up her excellent reports from the courtroom in Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...

Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:


•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (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 a street below - behind a sofa


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



The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:


•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;


•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;


•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and


•on that vehicle’s key/card. 


We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are

[Montclair]

talking of excellent reports...the following is reported to be part of the judgement made by the appeal court that overturned the injunction...

Eddie’ marked (or signalled) cadaver odour at the following locations:


•in the McCann couple’s bedroom in Apartment 5A (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 a street below - behind a sofa


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



The dog ‘Eddie’ again marked the signal of cadaver odour at these additional locations:


•at the ‘Vista do Mar’ villa, which was rented by the McCann couple after Madeleine’s disappearance, in the area of a wardrobe that contained a soft toy that had belonged to the little girl;


•on clothing that belonged to one of the applicants in these proceedings, Kate Healy, Madeleine’s mother;


•on the outside of the Renault Scenic vehicle with the registration plate number 59-DA-27, which was rented by the Mccann couple after the disappearance (next to the driver’s door), and


•on that vehicle’s key/card. 


We know that this is blatantly untrue as Grime has said that the alerts are merely suggestive of cadaver odour and do not confirm the presence of cadaver odour...are we being grossly misled... I would say we are

So what you are saying is that the dogs are totally useless. You are really afraid of the dogs' indications, aren't you? Just like Gerry when he had to get in his little remark about them to the judge in Lisbon before she shut him up.

[Albertini]

In my opinion, fully about libel, determined or admitted at the point Santos made his plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

I think court proceedings are to assess damage arising from proven or established libel.

In doubt is, not the result, but the level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.

Really? Yet the Appeal Court stated that the book:

The indicative facts that led to the McCanns being made formal suspects [arguidos] in the initial investigation were not deemed by the Ministry of Justice to be sufficient to lead to anyone being charged with any criminal offence. But those very same facts, seen through another prism and from another foundation, may well lead to a different conclusion from that reached by the Justice Ministry. The evidence that was deemed to be insufficient for a criminal prosecution can be understood in a different way, for example in an interpretation that can quite legitimately be published as a work of literature, so long as the said interpretation does not offend the fundamental rights of anyone involved. And as we have stated above, we have explained why the interpretation in Dr Amaral’s book does not offend the McCanns’ rights.

So on what basis and with what facts have you determined the outcome?

[Mr Gray]

So what you are saying is that the dogs are totally useless. You are really afraid of the dogs' indications, aren't you? Just like Gerry when he had to get in his little remark about them to the judge in Lisbon before she shut him up.

You do get things so wrong...what I have always said is that I prefer to believe what Grime says re the dogs as he is the expert....

[Mr Gray]

Really? Yet the Appeal Court stated that the book:

The indicative facts that led to the McCanns being made formal suspects [arguidos] in the initial investigation were not deemed by the Ministry of Justice to be sufficient to lead to anyone being charged with any criminal offence. But those very same facts, seen through another prism and from another foundation, may well lead to a different conclusion from that reached by the Justice Ministry. The evidence that was deemed to be insufficient for a criminal prosecution can be understood in a different way, for example in an interpretation that can quite legitimately be published as a work of literature, so long as the said interpretation does not offend the fundamental rights of anyone involved. And as we have stated above, we have explained why the interpretation in Dr Amaral’s book does not offend the McCanns’ rights.

So on what basis and with what facts have you determined the outcome?

You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants

[Montclair]

You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants

Why do you keep on lying about the decision of the appeals court? This passage is an integral part of the "acordaõ"!

[Albertini]

You need to look at my post where I show we are being misled re the judgement....it seems to me that part of what is purported to be the judgement is in fact the deposition of the defendants

So are you saying Amaral didn't win the appeal?

[Mr Gray]

Why do you keep on lying about the decision of the appeals court? This passage is an integral part of the "acordaõ"!

Then if the court believes that eddie alerted to cadaver on the key...and that this is a fact...then the Portuguese court is an ass......I suppose that is possible