So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Mr Gray]

Really ?

Judging by the events in court, the mccanns are fearing a humiliating defeat, hence the call for extra witnesses, as they have not as Albertini,Faithlilly and others have stated, been able to justify their claims.

Shame, isn't it.

so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements.....

[Montclair]

I take everything you say with a large pinch of salt...you don't even realise this is a libel trial....
you say I am wrong re written submissions then admit that there are written submissions and that they were admitted

You don't even realise that this is a damages trial!

[Mr Gray]

Who has said that much evidence has been submitted to the court in written form ? Cite please ?

Montclair now agrees

[Mr Gray]

You don't even realise that this is a damages trial!

it's both...and libel has not yet been decided...you will look quite silly if as I predict the judge in this trial rules on defemation..I'm looking forward to it

[faithlilly]

Montclair now agrees

So do you have a cite or not davel ?

[Alfred R Jones]

How can this trial be just about damages?  If so then surely that is acknowledgement that damaged has been suffered!

[ferryman]

How can this trial be just about damages?  If so then surely that is acknowledgement that damaged has been suffered!

In the legal systems, certainly of England and Portugal, I daresay, the whole world, damages are awarded for something.

In the present trial, that something is libel, aggravated by hindrance to the search for a missing little girl by promoting the fiction as if "fact" that her parents know she is dead, caused her death, concealed her body and launched a fraudulent "fund" in her name.

Inevitably, if that lie is swallowed, the search for Madeleine will be hindered, because the widespread belief will be that Madeleine is dead and theMcCannsdunit.

Who would trouble to look then?

[stephen25000]

so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements.....

You're really worried aren't you Dave ?

What will you do when you lose the court case?   

[Benice]

I'm not at all confident that the McCanns will win their case.    If the case was being conducted under UK law - then I think the McCanns would have won hands down and rightly so   - but I gave up trying to understand PT law long ago.   

The fact that despite torture in a PT police station being proved and accepted by the courts  - Leonor Cipriano is still in prison and has actually had her sentence increased for not be able to identify her torturers - has left me completely bewildered about their judicial system.

I do also wonder - as this case is known about worldwide, whether that will have an effect on the judgement.  Will national pride come into it?  Will making PT look as good as possible be on the agenda?  Will public opinion have a bearing on the verdict?  The latter did seem to me to be a major reason why LC was convicted.  Will the re-opening of the case in PT and the McCanns being ruled out as suspects be a consideration?   I have no idea. 

IMO anyone who has read the files and the book - can see for themselves that the book is libellous, but quantifying the damage to the McCanns and their family because of it may not be possible to establish with sufficient accuracy to satisfy a court.

Personally I would be happy with an acknowledgement that the book is libellous,  even with little or no damages being awarded.     I think the McCanns would be too - as IMO their only reason for asking for compensation was because they do not want Amaral to profit on the back of their missing little girl.    I would feel exactly the same.

[faithlilly]

I'm not at all confident that the McCanns will win their case.    If the case was being conducted under UK law - then I think the McCanns would have won hands down and rightly so   - but I gave up trying to understand PT law long ago.   

The fact that despite torture in a PT police station being proved and accepted by the courts  - Leonor Cipriano is still in prison and has actually had her sentence increased for not be able to identify her torturers - has left me completely bewildered about their judicial system.

I do also wonder - as this case is known about worldwide, whether that will have an effect on the judgement.  Will national pride come into it?  Will making PT look as good as possible be on the agenda?  Will public opinion have a bearing on the verdict?  The latter did seem to me to be a major reason why LC was convicted.  Will the re-opening of the case in PT and the McCanns being ruled out as suspects be a consideration?   I have no idea. 

IMO anyone who has read the files and the book - can see for themselves that the book is libellous, but quantifying the damage to the McCanns and their family because of it may not be possible to establish with sufficient accuracy to satisfy a court.

Personally I would be happy with an acknowledgement that the book is libellous,  even with little or no damages being awarded.     I think the McCanns would be too - as IMO their only reason for asking for compensation was because they do not want Amaral to profit on the back of their missing little girl.    I would feel exactly the same.

So you don't believe it was because of the damage being done to the search ?

[Albertini]

I'm not swerving anything, I'm giving my opinion (admittedly from a position of ignorance as I am neither Susan Hubbard, nor the McCanns).  why do you have to be so binary about things?  "Who was lying - Kate or Susan?"  Well, neither in my opinion.  And that's because what was being expressed WAS opinions, which differ from person to person and over time and in retrospect.  If you don't understand that, well, What more can I say.

Hang on a minute.

The McCann's called these people to testify on their behalf and to provide their evidence as to the state of their  mind. I think it was Funnyman that described them as the people who knew them best, or words to that effect.

If these witnesses have stated to the court that the McCann's weren't bothered, were expecting to be made Arguido's or weren't preoccupied by the Arguido status BUT kate said in her book that they considered fleeing the border then clearly they don't know them that well do they?

Or they do know them well and didn't tell the truth to the Court.

Either way it calls in to question their reliability and their opinions. After all if their assessments of Kate & Gerry's state of mind was so far off the mark and in such stark contrast to what Kate wrote in her book, then shouldn't the court presume that the rest of their testimony was as equally unreliable?

Why should the court believe any of their other claims?

I find it a bit odd that several of their witnesses stated the Arguido status didn't bother them but not one of them said anything which matched Kate's description in her book.

Don't you?

If i was of a suspicious mind I'd wonder if there was a coached "narrative" here.

[Albertini]

so albertini...faithlilly have stated the mccanns have not been able to justfy their claims...would you like to tell us how much notice the court will take of these statements.....

Probably about as much notice as they'll take of Pike's, McBride's and Hubbard's.

[Alice Purjorick]

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers' questions

TVI - You said that "everybody in Portugal believes the book". What makes you think this?
SH - says that in PDL some people believe Kate and Gerald, but outside they don't.

TVI - Do you suppose so? Have you any objective basis to think so?
SH - says she has knows a Portuguese nurse, in the hospital where she works in Canada, who believes what the book says.

TVI - Do you know if this book and the documentary were broadcast at the same moment?
SH - says when one and the other were launched.

TVI - Are the thesis identical?
SH - notes that in the documentary the actors representing Kate and Gerald were depicted drinking a lot, but the underlying theories are similar. She adds one must pay for the book whereas the access to the documentary is free.

TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.

TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.

TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.

TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
The judge overrules : the issue is "what kind of effect?"

b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions

VC - You don't know if Madeleine died. Your conviction is she's alive. The idea that something happened to her other than abduction is also a possibility. Do you think the McCanns are angry because such a theory exists that is different from theirs?
SH - hesitates, then says she doesn't think so, refers to the loss of hope.
VC – Have you seen the TVI documentary, have you read the final conclusion?
The judge overrules.

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP - first asks if Susan Hubbard knows Gonçalo Amaral and when she met the McCanns for the first time.
SH - answers she once saw Gonçalo Amaral somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).

GP - How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?
SH - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.

GP - We could then expect the same reaction after the book was published. You, as a close friend who saw them almost every day, must know better than anyone. How did they react when they were made arguidos?
SH - answers they wanted to protect the twins and didn't know what to do. They thought of taking them to Spain. They reacted with sadness (Gerry McCann with anger) because the police wouldn't be looking for their daughter.

GP - Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine?
SH - answers yes.

GP - And after the book was published?
SH - answers yes.

Interesting or in light of the top highlighted bit should one say priceless?
Then again maybe it was those pesky translators.

[Benice]

So you don't believe it was because of the damage being done to the search ?

Surely it goes without saying that Amaral's claims in his book would be damaging to the search for her - as common sense dictates there would be no point in continuing to believe that she could be found alive by those people who -  purely as a result of reading his book   - became convinced that she was dead.     But how you could accurately quantify the amount of damage done in that way - I simply do not know.
 

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Counting was never my strong point will some kind person enumerate the 6 decisions.
I can only account for 4.
Temporary injunction based on Drs McCann's submission (Court of First Instance)
Court upholds injunction after Dr Amarals submission (Court of First Instance)
Dr Amaral appeals against judgement; appeal upheld (Court of Appeal)
Drs McCann appeal against ruling by Court of Appeal; appeal denied (Supreme Court)
What have I missed in which court and which dates?