So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Albertini]

The clear myth, above many others, is that that a so called 'search' was impeded.

It is complete and utter rollocks.

It's a simple case of asking what FACTS were produced in the trial to support the allegation.

Here's one for starters from Angus McBride who described himself in court as "a specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media",  when questioned by Amaral's lawyer:

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO - I would like to know, in order to compare, about the impact following the disappearance, the arguido status and the book.
AM - says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.

Oops! That's not good is it? A specialist in the management of media cannot produce any numbers or facts about how the media reporting changed

[Albertini]

Amaral's ill-gotten gains from the sale of his book and from interviews is quite quantifiable ...

You've jumped the gun (and quite possibly the shark at the same time).

To work out the "ill gotten gains" you first need to establish that the book was libellous. The previous judges stated the book was a valid interpretation of the facts.

So if it is that then how can it be judged as libellous and if it isn't then the money made from it is irrelevant.

You need to quantify the libel first, the damage done to the search next then get to the point of the ill gotten gains as you call them.

[ferryman]

It's a simple case of asking what FACTS were produced in the trial to support the allegation.

Here's one for starters from Angus McBride who described himself in court as "a specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media",  when questioned by Amaral's lawyer:

Oops! That's not good is it? A specialist in the management of media cannot produce any numbers or facts about how the media reporting changed

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

That is, apparently, based on the case files.

Hmmm!

[faithlilly]

Neither....They didn't bother to get it overturned because the libel trial will finally settle the issue...as you will see. The book is no longer in print so why bother to get an injunction...why is it no longer in print...do the publishers accept it's libellous?

The book is still being sold on Amazon websites across Europe. If it had been proved to be libellous the McCanns could have used their considerable legal muscle to have it pulled, as they did with Pat Brown's ebook.

[Albertini]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

That is, apparently, based on the case files.

Hmmm!

That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........

[Montclair]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

That is, apparently, based on the case files.

Hmmm!

Hilarious! You are still coming up with that stupid affirmation that the lawyer claimed that the book was invented. I will say this only once, she was being ironic and was looking at GA when she said it and they both laughed.

[Montclair]

The book is still being sold on Amazon websites across Europe. If it had been proved to be libellous the McCanns could have used their considerable legal muscle to have it pulled, as they did with Pat Brown's ebook.

If the McCanns wanted to pull the books in any other country, they would have to sue in the courts of each country and that would entail too many costs for them.

[ferryman]

That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........

Which point at hand?

The point at hand that, according to the appeal court that overturned the injunction, Amaral's book is faithful to the files?

Or the point at hand that Amaral's takings from a book and from interviews proclaiming that Madeleine is definitely dead as well as a film proclaiming the same, can be precisely measured in monetary terms?

[stephen25000]

It was a stitch up, steve.

Mr Grime was cueing Eddie.

Magic beans?

Well the mccanns are clearly fond of fairy stories.

[stephen25000]

Which point at hand?

The point at hand that, according to the appeal court that overturned the injunction, Amaral's book is faithful to the files?

Or the point at hand that Amaral's takings from a book and from interviews proclaiming that Madeleine is definitely dead as well as a film proclaiming the same, can be precisely measured in monetary terms?

He was giving his view.

Now tell me the status of Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal, other than the fact that she 'disappeared' ?

[ferryman]

Hilarious! You are still coming up with that stupid affirmation that the lawyer claimed that the book was invented. I will say this only once, she was being ironic and was looking at GA when she said it and they both laughed.

Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.

We also know the literal untruth of your comment.

[faithlilly]

That's been covered previously and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

Now about the proof that the book harmed the search........

It certainly harmed the search to find the McCann's credibility.

[faithlilly]

Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.

We also know the literal untruth of your comment.

So why did you think a lawyer for the defence would make such a remark unless it was ironic ? Wouldn't her clients be absolutely furious that she could have potentially lost them hundreds of thousands of euros ? Think logically ferryman.

[ferryman]

It certainly harmed the search to find the McCann's credibility.

There is never a need to "search" for something that has been there all along ...

[stephen25000]

Unfortunately for you, Monclaire, others have read the book, too, and know only too well the literal truth of Fatima de Oliveira Esteves' comment.

We also know the literal untruth of your comment.

Really.

Where you in court ferryman ?