The libel trial is about assessing damage, both to the reputations of the McCanns and the search for Madeleine caused by a book and a video that both assert (contrary to truth) that Madeleine was established as dead by the shelved enquiry, that the McCanns know she is dead and covered up the fact of her death and that the McCanns launched a fraudulent "appeal" in their (dead) daughter's name.
I assume most would agree that Isabel Duarte knows a thing or two more about Portuguese law than anyone here, and she believes the McCanns have a very good chance of succeeding.
Damages sought are high by the standard that is usual in Portugal, I admit that.
But is there a (Portuguese) precedent for a book and a video published in several countries of one continent that peddles such falsehood on such a scale?
I bet there isn't.
The libel trial is about assessing if the book was libellous. Then if it is proven it is the extent of the damage caused.
Given the words of the previous Judges and the lack of anything other than opinion and zero quantifiable facts from the plaintiff's witness supporting the allegations it is most definitely not the forgone conclusion you seem to think it is.
If you are going to claim that you have suffered damage at least try and quantify it through, for example, a record of increased media stories promoting the book's claims.
None was forthcoming from any witness or lawyer.
And i come back to the Appeal court Judges who stated the book did not offend the Mccann's rights.
If it didn't offend their rights and was fine to be sold, how can another (lower) court Judge then rule it did offend their rights and was libellous?
And to try and use the fact that a lawyer who was to be paid took their case on as some indicator of the strength of case is laughable beyond belief.
