So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Albertini]

Judges are sometimes wrong.  In anyone's opinion.  Ask Mr. Bennett.

It takes a large number of years to get heard in The Court of Human Rights.

And from what I can see, even Portuguese Posters have trouble understanding Portuguese Law.  Who wouldn't?

So have they started the process of appealing against it then?

Did their legal team bring it up and destroy its findings in this current case?

[Eleanor]

PS.  Do we have any experts in Portuguese Law posting on this Forum?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference to me, apart from the use of words, which mainly amount to the same thing.

[ferryman]

You need to sort your posting formatting out.

However I'm still in stitches here.

Why if they were wrong didn't little izzy, who you say knows her Portuguese legal onions, take it further or destroy its findings in this case?

You're funny!

ETA: It's you I find funny.

We've already heard from one of the respondents in the trial (literally, not ironically) that Amaral's book is made up.

[Eleanor]

So have they started the process of appealing against it then?

Did their legal team bring it up and destroy its findings in this current case?

They do have time, but at the moment it is irrelevant.

I have no idea which way this trial will go, but I expect to understand the reasoning when there is a judgment.

So far, I do understand, but it would take me a page and a half to explain.  And I never was into long and very boring posts.  Especially as I am pretty sure that most of my compadres understand as well.

[Albertini]

We've already heard from one of the respondents in the trial (literally, not ironically) that Amaral's book is made up.

Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?

I'm still howling here by the way.

[ferryman]

Mark Harrison, before the dog inspections.

After the dog inspections, Harrison said this:

On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
 
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.

Didn't even acknowledge UK input in either inspection at villa or gym.

Why is that, do you suppose?

ETA: rooting that firmly back on topic, the only explanation of how the inspection at the gym came about is that in Amaral's book.

There is no corroboration of Amaral's explanation in the files, and Harrison turned his back on it when it occurred.

That should weigh against Amaral in the final reckoning when the judge comes to deliver her verdict.

[Albertini]

They do have time, but at the moment it is irrelevant.

I have no idea which way this trial will go, but I expect to understand the reasoning when there is a judgment.

So far, I do understand, but it would take me a page and a half to explain.  And I never was into long and very boring posts.  Especially as I am pretty sure that most of my compadres understand as well.

So that's a no then?

Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?

That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.

Did that happen?

[Eleanor]

Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?

I'm still howling here by the way.

Oh, the irony.

[ferryman]

Is that the one for the DEFENCE that was made as an ironic comment which you have chosen, to suit your agenda, that as a dead pan delivered critical truth?

I'm still howling here by the way.

Wrong again.

It was a literal comment.

[Montclair]

Wrong again.

It was a literal comment.

And you're delusional. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the judge thinks. She was there and heard the remark and she knows that it was irony.

[Albertini]

Wrong again.

It was a literal comment.

Yeah you cling on to that hope funny man ( given your statement about the judges being wrong you should really amend your username accordingly).

It's pretty much the only thing you can cling on to at the moment with the trial.

Nothing presented to usurp the judges findings at appeal.
No quantifiable facts to support the assertion that the book damaged them
No evidence to counter the JUDGEMENT that the book did not violate their rights.

Do you want to borrow some straws?

[Eleanor]

So that's a no then?

Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?

That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.

Did that happen?

What are you talking about?  There is nothing quick and easy in Portuguese Law.

And "So that's a No" to what then?  I thought I was being unbiased.  I will go with The Judgment because whatever it is it will be understandable.  Even if I don't necessarily agree.

[ferryman]

So that's a no then?

Ok so did they unleash Isobel on it in this trial exposing the fact it was so fundamentally wrong?

That would have been a quick and easy way to do it.

Did that happen?

I think the best you can hope for is that the judge will award the McCanns substantially lower than those they seek.

But what will matter most to the McCanns (I predict) is an unequivocal ruling that Amaral's book is a work of libel.

[Albertini]

You do seem to be getting very exercised over this, and determined to "win".  Which is a little odd, to my mind.

First of all this is a forum for discussion and debate.

Second, the matter (the real one) is in the hands of the court, and whatever we say on here will matter not one jot.

What's odd is that random internet peeps think it's acceptable to state that legally unchallenged court judgements are wrong.
What's odd is posters being given time and again the exact phrase used in the judgement stating the McCann's rights were not violated but yet still persisting with the line that Amaral's right to freedom was greater than the McCann's rights.
What's odd is that despite requests for quantifiable and verifiable facts from the witnesses to support the allegations - and having provided none posters persist in perpetuating the myth that not only will Amaral lose but, in ferrymans case stating, unchallenged, that libel has already been proven.
Don't you find those things odd?

[Eleanor]

You know, this is such a good Thread at the moment.  So why the need for insults?  Everyone is doing so well.  So can you just leave it out, please.