So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Alfred R Jones]

What I find rather comical is that you're all arguing from a position of ignorance to a greater or lesser degree.  No one really knows wtf is (or has) REALLY been going on and trying to second guess the outcome is a pointless exercise.  This is Portuguese justice - anything could happen!

[Albertini]

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.

It's a no in relation to action being commenced to take the appeal ruling further.
It's a no that Duarte did not seek to destroy the appeals ruling in court in this case.

My point is if the Judges were so wrong why the McCann's legal team have done nothing in terms of appeal to a higher European court, or sought to debunk it in this trial.

If that's thecase could it be because they have had to accept it?

That's the point.

[ferryman]

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?

The objective definition of libel is assertions presented as "fact" that (Portuguese law!) is proven untrue.

Amaral's book literally teems with examples and I gather from those who have seen it (I haven't)  the film is worse.

So the question at issue is what level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.

Probably less than those they seek.

[Albertini]

What I find rather comical is that you're all arguing from a position of ignorance to a greater or lesser degree.  No one really knows wtf is (or has) REALLY been going on and trying to second guess the outcome is a pointless exercise.  This is Portuguese justice - anything could happen!

Hi Alfred, I totally accept that, but one has to try and look at the surrounding information of previous judgements and witness evidence to try and form a view that is based on that evidence.

Given that the previous appeals court ruling was so unequivocal I'm surprised this trial was allowed to proceed in the first place. If the book was judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts which did not affect the rights of the McCann's than how on earth can they claim its libellous?

The previous judges I would have thought have answered that question resoundingly.

[Albertini]

The objective definition of libel is assertions presented as "fact" that (Portuguese law!) is proven untrue.

Amaral's book literally teems with examples and I gather from those who have seen it (I haven't)  the film is worse.

So the question at issue is what level of damages the McCanns will be awarded.

Probably less than those they seek.

But that's only your view. It has been previously judged to have been a valid interpretation of those facts which does not impinge the rights of the McCann's.

Given that how on earth can it then be classed as libellous?

[Alfred R Jones]

Hi Alfred, I totally accept that, but one has to try and look at the surrounding information of previous judgements and witness evidence to try and form a view that is based on that evidence.

Given that the previous appeals court ruling was so unequivocal I'm surprised this trial was allowed to proceed in the first place. If the book was judged to be a valid interpretation of the facts which did not affect the rights of the McCann's than how on earth can they claim its libellous?

The previous judges I would have thought have answered that question resoundingly.

Re; the bit in bold above - well it was allowed and that should give you some pause for thought.  There must be a reason as I said to John earlier, otherwise the judge would have thrown it out before it ever got off the ground.  So, why has it been allowed to proceed, and for so long?

[ferryman]

But that's only your view. It has been previously judged to have been a valid interpretation of those facts which does not impinge the rights of the McCann's.

Given that how on earth can it then be classed as libellous?

Based on what?

Clearly not careful comparison of the book with the case files ...

[Albertini]

Based on what?

Clearly not careful comparison of the book with the case files ...

It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.

They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.

Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?

[ferryman]

It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.

They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.

Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?

Now I'm the one in fits of laughter ...

[Eleanor]

It's a no in relation to action being commenced to take the appeal ruling further.
It's a no that Duarte did not seek to destroy the appeals ruling in court in this case.

My point is if the Judges were so wrong why the McCann's legal team have done nothing in terms of appeal to a higher European court, or sought to debunk it in this trial.

If that's thecase could it be because they have had to accept it?

That's the point.

I don't know.  I thought that there was no Appeal Court beyond what Isobel Duarte did.  And it wasn't the prime issue anyway, since there is an ongoing Trial. 

But then I don't generally disagree with what A Judge says.  I actually believe that most of them know their own Law. 

We will only see that in action if one party or the other disagrees with her judgment.  Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.  Appeals are not automatic.

So at the moment, your opinion is a good as mine.

[Eleanor]

It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.

They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.

Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?

It is for The Judge to find the discrepancies.  And she will if there are any.  She will have a team of researchers finding the relevant passages, and then she will read what is important.  She has already read The Title of The Book and formed an opinion on that.  That was a good one.

[Albertini]

It is for The Judge to find the discrepancies.  And she will if there are any.  She will have a team of researchers finding the relevant passages, and then she will read what is important.  She has already read The Title of The Book and formed an opinion on that.  That was a good one.

So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?

[ferryman]

I don't know.  I thought that there was no Appeal Court beyond what Isobel Duarte did.  And it wasn't the prime issue anyway, since there is an ongoing Trial. 

But then I don't generally disagree with what A Judge says.  I actually believe that most of them know their own Law. 

We will only see that in action if one party or the other disagrees with her judgment.  Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.  Appeals are not automatic.

So at the moment, your opinion is a good as mine.

Kate's book

Devastatingly, by the autumn, everything had flipped again.  On 19 October 2010 we were hit from a bolt from the blue.  Clarence was told by a Sun reporter that yet another decision from the appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban on sale of Amaral's book and DVD (decision 5).  We hadn't been aware that another judgment was about to be made and neither was our lawyer.  The broadside just came from nowhere.  How many appeals was Amaral going to be allowed?  How could other judges come along and overturn a decision made by 3 courts before them?

(There's more)

Then here's the nub:

In a 6th decision in 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected.

Page 426 (paperback)

Kate McCann.

[Alfred R Jones]

It doesn't matter. The plaintiffs defence team have had plenty of opportunities to highlight these alleged discrepancies and have failed to do so.

They have also had the option to take the case further or to highlight these errors in the judgement but haven't done so.

Maybe they need to sack isobel and hire you?

Aren't defence teams for defendants?

[ferryman]

So why didn't the 3 appeal court judges and their respectve teams find these alleged discrepancies?

Has it ever occurred to you that judges get things wrong?

That's why appeals are allowed?