So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Albertini]

A book judged (eventually) on appeal to have ascendency to that part of the Portuguese Constitution that allows freedom of expression over the (conflicting) right of citizens to a good name ...

Dear lord it's like Groundhog Day here.

How many times do you need to be quoted the part of the judgement which states the publication if he book did not affect the fundamental rights of the applicants?

Not "we weighed up the rights of both and in balance Amaral's rights were greater than the McCann's".

The judgement stated their rights were NOT AFFECTED.

[Albertini]

I don't think you know what Isobel Duarte has so far demonstrated.  I certainly don't.

But if she had torn strips off hat judgement would it not have been reported in the transcripts? I didn't see any, did you?

[ferryman]

Dear lord it's like Groundhog Day here.

How many times do you need to be quoted the part of the judgement which states the publication if he book did not affect the fundamental rights of the applicants?

Not "we weighed up the rights of both and in balance Amaral's rights were greater than the McCann's".

The judgement stated their rights were NOT AFFECTED.

How many times do you need to be told?

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.


I guess Ms Esteves was also being ironic and the second part of her statement, was she?

[Eleanor]

But if she had torn strips off hat judgement would it not have been reported in the transcripts? I didn't see any, did you?

Who is doing The Transcripts?  That might be the question.

[Albertini]

Who is doing The Transcripts?  That might be the question.

So are you saying there was something said but it was mistranslated or that something was said but not reported?

[Albertini]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.


I guess Ms Esteves was also being ironic and the second part of her statement, was she?

Given that Ms Eateves was representing a defendant in the same boat as Amaral, yes she was being ironic.

[Albertini]

I await ferryman's riposte.

Let's not forget Susan Hubbards abject humiliation and headlong fall into a giant bear trap:

Defence Lawyer: How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?

Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.

Defence Lawyer:  Then we could  expect the same reaction after the book was published

Oops!! She fell for that one!

[Angelo222]

Who is doing The Transcripts?  That might be the question.

That old cookie won't wear Eleanor.  Had Duarte made any significant advances it would have been reflected not only in the court reports but also in the press.  Have you seen any such reports?

[ferryman]

We know that the FSS established Madeleine's DNA from a sample of saliva recovered from Madeleine's pillow

A slight doubt, raised by the FSS, that the profile might have been Amelie's, was resolved easily by taking Ameilie's DNA and comparing it with the DNA from the pillow.

The two profiles were different, confirming they had Madeleine's DNA.

Now read this exchange between Amaral and the Portuguese Forensic laboratory.

7th August 2007

The present inquiry is in relation to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May from P da L.

The English authorities in possession of elements collected from the family home in Leicestershire, which are being examined in an unidentified laboratory, traced the girl's DNA profile, in annex to this document.

As it is necessary to the investigation we request the following:

1. Whether in the tests done by the INML Madeleine's profile was established?

2. In the case of a positive answer to point 1, that it should be determined whether the girl is the daughter of the parents identified ? Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Healy.

3. Information about whether the profile obtained by the INML corresponds to the profile traced in the English laboratory, on the request of the British authorities.

4. If there are differences between the English and Portuguese profiles that a report should be drawn up for this inquiry.

5. In the follow-up of point 4, we request to be informed whether in the English profile the girl is the daughter of the McCann couple.

6. Other information that might be of use to the investigation.

Signed G. Amaral
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419

And the response:

Vol IX Page 2419

Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral

22-08-2007

Reply to Queries

- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.


- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.

- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.

- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.

- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out.
Signed

A short while later, Gerry not Madeleine's Father broke ...

[Anna]

Who is doing The Transcripts?  That might be the question.

I believe it was AG, Eleanor.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html

[Anna]

From what I have read, it appears that this case is being judged in a lower court than the last appeal, where it was deemed, that the basic rights of the family were not damaged by the book and the appeal was lost by the McCanns.

A lower court can not overrule a high court, so what are the plaintiffs appeal contents, which are now having evidence presented in court, in readiness for the eventual judgement?
 Does anyone know for sure?

Hasn’t there already been a trial for defamation in which they lost?

Is it only the damages that are being claimed, for the pain and suffering caused by the book and the fact that the search for a live, Maddie was abandoned, because the only theory that was present, was the death and concealment? If this is the case, why are the contents of the book coming into question again?

Some witnesses have given evidence to establish how the book has caused pain and suffering to the family and to do so,  it was necessary to travel to Portugal, however somebody suggested that witnesses from Portugal could do this…………..How?

Sorry for all the questions, but to be honest I’m as much in the dark about this libel case, as I suspect  many others on here are.
Some even talk as if they were there in the court room during the hearing.
All we really know at present is…Hearsay.

[Albertini]

And lets not forget pikes classic faux pas.

Apologies but my iPhone won't cut and paste for some reason so I'll
Manually type it there or thereabouts:

Pike: they were surprised with the book because the final report said they were innocent.

Defence lawyer: have you read the final report

Pike: no

Defence lawyer: how do you know what's its conclusions were?

pike: says the McCann's told him.

Stupid boy pike!

[Alfred R Jones]

Didn't Amaral admit he hadn't read the Final Report either?  The one his book is supposedly based on?

[Eleanor]

So are you saying there was something said but it was mistranslated or that something was said but not reported?

Probably both.  But I don't actually know.

[ferryman]

And lets not forget pikes classic faux pas.

Apologies but my iPhone won't cut and paste for some reason so I'll
Manually type it there or thereabouts:

Pike: they were surprised with the book because the final report said they were innocent.

Defence lawyer: have you read the final report

Pike: no

Defence lawyer: how do you know what's its conclusions were?

pike: says the McCann's told him.

Stupid boy pike!

Anne Guides' report ...