So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[faithlilly]

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

If the McCann's credibility was assured ferryman there would be no need for you and your fellow supporters to be here.

[ferryman]

Really.

Where you in court ferryman ?

I didn't need to attend court to read the book.

[stephen25000]

I didn't need to attend court to read the book.

I wasn't referring to the book.

[Albertini]

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?

No the point at hand, which i have asked you for several times, is to quantify the damage to the search the book caused.

I'm asking you for the proof Angus McBride couldn't come up with in court. 

In relation to the previous Judges ruling you misrepresent again. Those Judge's stated:

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

That's not the same as saying it was faithful to the files. It's stating the validity of his interpretation of the information in the files.

[Eleanor]

As I asked, and so far ignored,  Does The Judge not have some days to go through the depositions to determine what is true and what isn't?

[ferryman]

I wasn't referring to the book.

A question for both you and Montclaire:

Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Do you think that actually happened?

[stephen25000]

A question for both you and Montclaire:

Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Do you think that actually happened?

It has already been acknowledged that Amaral misinterpreted the forensic evidence, but that does not dismiss the possibility of a dead body in the apartment.

[ferryman]

As I asked, and so far ignored,  Does The Judge not have some days to go through the depositions to determine what is true and what isn't?

Yes.

Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.

[Albertini]

A question for both you and Montclaire:

Do you both find it credible that Amaral, whose own (mis)understanding of forensics is incompetent, nevertheless contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that he then sent Prior away to berate the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Do you think that actually happened?

What's that got to do with the libel case we're discussing in this thread.

One more little nugget from the trial:

- The Judge states that the Final Report is evidence in itself and obviously not a judgement.

[Eleanor]

Yes.

Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.

Voila!  So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.

Thanks, Ferryman.

[Benice]

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.

So was his lawye'rs request for the case to be held in camera 'lest Madeleine still be alive' - also 'ironic' then - as that 'remark' would also appear to be highly damaging to his client's case?

I'm more interested to know in what context the lawyer made the ''invention''  remark - regardless of whether it was ironic or not?  Does anyone know plz?

[stephen25000]

Voila!  So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.

Thanks, Ferryman.

Or of course examine thoroughly the mccanns nebulous claims for damages, psychological and otherwise, which it appears they have  been unable to substantiate.

[Alice Purjorick]

Judge Maria de Melo e Castro said the court will convene on January 21 to discuss which facts have been proved. She is expected to defer judgment until February.

Voila!  So there must be some doubt then about the veracity of the book.

Thanks, Ferryman.

It could also be construed she meant which items in the plaintiffs writ can be proved.

[ferryman]

If the McCann's credibility was assured ferryman there would be no need for you and your fellow supporters to be here.

Equally, if the integrity of the investigation Amaral headed up, then wrote about, was assured, we wouldn't be discussing this topic.

[Eleanor]

It could also be construed she meant which items in the plaintiffs writ can be proved.

It means to me that she isn't as daft as some might think. 

Only statements can be proved or not.  The damage done to The McCanns can only be an opinion.