So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[stephen25000]

Yes I do take your point on that Ferryman.   I agree it would be an indication, but we don't know how many of the people who read his book and watched his interviews actually believed him and how many people didn't.   IMO far more people did believe him than didn't   - but how can you prove it?

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but for reasons previously stated - I'm simply not confident enough in the PT judicial system to be sure that the McCanns will get justice and win their case.

Whatever the outcome - I hope they will draw a line under it rather than be dragged into years of appeals etc.

The case has been re-opened by the Portuguese police and they are not suspects - and to me -  that is far more important than Amaral's book - which IMO has been thoroughly negated by those facts.

The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.

[Jean-Pierre]

AND THE TRIAL WILL GO ON, AND ON, AND ON....................

I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course. 

Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim. 

Who are you or I to disagree...........

 

[Carana]

The usual format in the ruling is that the judge presents both sides of the case in terms of the content of the complaint by the plaintiffs and the defence submission. There is an examination of what can be established as proven facts on both sides and an examination of the legal aspects involved. (There may also be an examination of what is admissible or not, if there are doubts about that.)

Are the submissions identical to those in the injunction trial or not?

Even if those are the basis, have other supporting submissions been made for either side or not? If so, there is no way of knowing at this stage which may have been considered admissible or not.

[Alfred R Jones]

kate Mccann:
Michael Wright at the libel trial -
Trish Cameron at the libel trial -
Alan Pike at the libel trial -
Susan Hubbard at the libel trial - says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.

Angus McBride at the libel trial -
Can't you see a narrative to downplay the impact of being made Arguido and kate's own word?

If you cannot i wonder why not?

I have read all the above and every quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, obviously it doesn't to you because you have a heightened sensitivity to any and every tiny discrepancy between statements and see these as evidence of falsehood.  Now, how about answering my question.  Do you think the book did not cause the McCanns any hurt or damage?  Put in their position, would the book have caused you no further hurt or damage beyond that caused by being made an arguido (a situation subsequently dropped owing to a lack of evidence)? 

[ferryman]

In which case you mean the case has been settled in favour of the McCanns and all that now remains is to settle the amount of damages due to them. 

Well well well.   

Which would follow logically if Santos' plea at the beginning that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive is to be made any sense of at all ...

[stephen25000]

I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course. 

Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim. 

Who are you or I to disagree...........

I was referring to the almost inevitable appeals.

[Carana]

The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.

Again, as it was when Murat won his case against CdaM...

[Albertini]

My guess, for some considerable time now, is that it was never in "the script" that the case should reach court and the plaintiffs side were ill prepared for what happened. Well assuming the litany of duff responses from the key witnesses was not intended.
Cite? This forums own court reports.

I think it's more likely that they could not show an increase in the number of stories because they had CR on a short leash ready to pounce if anyone dare print stories about the book over in the UK, so there wasn't an increase.

It's hard to convince a court of the damage the book caused when it was released when there was no surge in online news stories (and circulation) about it because the Carter Ruck machine was on standby to smack down any comment on the book.

[jassi]

What was written in Amaral's book that has been proven to be true which damaged the McCanns?

I was being hypothetical.  It seems to me that very little has been proven to be true or false.

[Angelo222]

I bow to Montclair's superior knowledge in this, of course. 

Apparently it is now a damages issue, so this means the defamation trial must already have been settled and all that remains is to assess the damages claim. 

Who are you or I to disagree...........

A libel issue pertaining to Maddie's supposed disappearance can never be determined as long as that disappearance remains unresolved.  The McCanns are claiming damages because of Amaral's book regardless of any potential libel.

The question remains, did the book damage the search for Maddie and secondly, did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?

[Alfred R Jones]

I think it's more likely that they could not show an increase in the number of stories because they had CR on a short leash ready to pounce if anyone dare print stories about the book over in the UK, so there wasn't an increase.

It's hard to convince a court of the damage the book caused when it was released when there was no surge in online news stories (and circulation) about it because the Carter Ruck machine was on standby to smack down any comment on the book.

Was there no surge in news stories in Portugal and the rest of Europe when the book was published?  Was there no surge in online comment on forums when the book came out? 

[ferryman]

Again, as it was when Murat won his case against CdaM...

I think the key difference between Murat's libel victory (on appeal!) and the McCanns' action is that Murat was, by definition, unable to disprove the allegation against him.

The McCanns have the advantage in their action that they can disprove huge swathes of Amaral's thesis, in book, video and interviews.

[Alfred R Jones]

I was being hypothetical.  It seems to me that very little has been proven to be true or false.

If it has not been proven true then it is surely libellous, is it not?

[Albertini]

I have read all the above and every quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, obviously it doesn't to you because you have a heightened sensitivity to any and every tiny discrepancy between statements and see these as evidence of falsehood.  Now, how about answering my question.  Do you think the book did not cause the McCanns any hurt or damage?  Put in their position, would the book have caused you no further hurt or damage beyond that caused by being made an arguido (a situation subsequently dropped owing to a lack of evidence)?

No you're not getting off the hook so easily as you haven't addressed the issue.

The comments would be fine if they matched what Kate herself said.

These people's statements to the court DO NOT tally with Kate Mccann's own comments in her book about how they were feeling. They are poles apart.

The point is if these people who were closest to them at the time could not accurately know how they were feeling when they were made Arguido, how are we, or indeed the court, supposed to have any faith in the rest of their testimonies as to regards Gerry & Kate's well being?

[Benice]

The key fact you have missed benice, is that the crime is still undetermined.

Yes we know -

Perhaps you could also try to remember that regardless of what the crime was  -  both the Portuguese police force and SY have ruled the McCanns and their friends OUT as suspects or even persons of interest in this case.

And you don't get more 'key' than that.