So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

Your sole argument rests on one line of Kate's book - that the McCanns considered leaving Portugal when they heard that they had been made arguidos.  Kate does not mention her fear or shock at being made an arguido - that is YOUR interpretation, by which you are judging their close friends' comments.  You're been unreasonable.  Why not quote THIS from the book?

"Gerry phoned my mum to explain what was happening, and what was likely to happen, including the probability that we would be made arguidos.  Of course she was extremely upset.  I know how helpless our parents must have felt at home and how it must have compounded their fears and frustrations.

Strangely, I was feeling OK. I think by now I'd switched on to autopilot and an inner strength and calmness I hadn't expected to find had begun to take over.   My instinct to protect my child was more powerful than my fear and I could see very clearly what needed to be done".

Kind of blows your argument apart doesn't it?

[ferryman]

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?

A slight grammatical nit-pick: I would say questions remain.

And I would say, unequivocally yes! (to both questions).

[Angelo222]

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.

No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.

[Alice Purjorick]

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...........

You worry me sometimes J-P; there appears to be a fundamold in your thinking there.
Hint: what are the full terms of the writ?.
I suspect what you have said above is a logical fallacy.

[Alfred R Jones]

No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.

No they are not.  The Met have made that very clear.  Are you calling Andy Redwood a liar?

[Albertini]

Your sole argument rests on one line of Kate's book - that the McCanns considered leaving Portugal when they heard that they had been made arguidos.  Kate does not mention her fear or shock at being made an arguido - that is YOUR interpretation, by which you are judging their close friends' comments.  You're been unreasonable.  Why not quote THIS from the book?

"Gerry phoned my mum to explain what was happening, and what was likely to happen, including the probability that we would be made arguidos.  Of course she was extremely upset.  I know how helpless our parents must have felt at home and how it must have compounded their fears and frustrations.

Strangely, I was feeling OK. I think by now I'd switched on to autopilot and an inner strength and calmness I hadn't expected to find had begun to take over.   My instinct to protect my child was more powerful than my fear and I could see very clearly what needed to be done".

Kind of blows your argument apart doesn't it?

Not at all. What you are describing there is before they were made Arguido: "including the probability that we would be made arguidos".

The comment in Kate's book i used and the questions answered in court was AFTER they were made Arguidos. 

At some point their mood must have changed signicantly otherwise they wouldn't be even discussing let alone considering going on the run as fugitives.

And it wasn't just "considering leaving Portugal" was it?

It was about bunking off in the dead of night and making a run to the Spanish border for heaven's sake.

Hardly the actions or thoughts of someone entirely comfortable with being made Arguido is it?

[stephen25000]

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.

Where has it been proved an abduction took place ?

P.S. A belief in one is not evidence, let alone proof.

The crime as it stands is unresolved.

Perhaps, if people like you, didn't continuously spout on about abduction, I wouldn't have to keep reminding you as to the current state of the crime.

[ferryman]

No they can't because as it stands they are still under suspicion.

No they aren't.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not at all. What you are describing there is before they were made Arguido: "including the probability that we would be made arguidos".

The comment in Kate's book i used and the questions answered in court was AFTER they were made Arguidos. 

At some point their mood must have changed signicantly otherwise they wouldn't be even discussing let alone considering going on the run as fugitives.

And it wasn't just "considering leaving Portugal" was it?

It was about bunking off in the dead of night and making a run to the Spanish border for heaven's sake.

Hardly the actions or thoughts of someone entirely comfortable with being made Arguido is it?

This is a very tiresome argument.  I have given evidence from Kate's book that supports the view that Kate was not afraid of being an arguido.  If they had then gone on the run (as you describe it) then maybe you might have a point, but a fleeting moment of despair in which they consider such an action doesn't necessarily override EVERY other feeling or emotion they had about being made arguidos. They did not run away from their interrogators, they ran the barrage of the media onslaught outside the police station (and managed not to hit any cameramen in the process), they remained calm and dignified and defiantly courageous throughout the process, and left the station with their heads held high - not the actions of the fearful and tremulous.  Now, I have answered your questions repeatedly, are you ever going to address mine?

[Angelo222]

No they are not.  The Met have made that very clear.  Are you calling Andy Redwood a liar?

The Met?   Most of Portugal and half the population of the UK regard their conduct as suspicious or maybe you haven't noticed and that includes many senior detectives and other professionals.  In any event, nobody outside OG knows exactly what Redwood's views are on the case, what he utters publicly has probably little in common with the truth.

[Angelo222]

No they aren't.

Yes they are or we wouldn't be here today debating it.

[Angelo222]

This is a very tiresome argument.  I have given evidence from Kate's book that supports the view that Kate was not afraid of being an arguido.  If they had then gone on the run (as you describe it) then maybe you might have a point, but a fleeting moment of despair in which they consider such an action doesn't necessarily override EVERY other feeling or emotion they had about being made arguidos. They did not run away from their interrogators, they ran the barrage of the media onslaught outside the police station (and managed not to hit any cameramen in the process), they remained calm and dignified and defiantly courageous throughout the process, and left the station with their heads held high - not the actions of the fearful and tremulous.  Now, I have answered your questions repeatedly, are you ever going to address mine?

Kates biggest fear was what her parents and friends would say when they heard the news.  When is she going to answer those questions?  Notable that all the witnesses recently interviewed in Faro had no such fear.  What does that say for a parent whose child had supposedly disappeared yet refused to cooperate with police?

[Carana]

I find several points intriguing. 

Amaral's case seems to be that he - and everyone else - had come to the same conclusion based on what was known (or otherwise understood to be the case) during his tenure.

- The judge has been trying to ascertain whether the contents of the book / documentary are faithfull to the files, but the defence witnesses beat about the bush (they either haven't read it, watched it, or they simply read and agreed with the overall conclusion). Seriously?

Some of it is, some of it is based on a garbled understanding (at best) and some of it doesn't appear in the files at all.

Who is responsible for ascertaining what is and what isn't? Is the onus on what witnesses state in court? Is background evidence of "misunderstandings" or hearsay that doesn't appear in the files allowed? Would evidence that aspects of the allegations may or may not be accurate be allowed during a live investigation (which is NOW the case, although it wasn't at the time)?

[Alfred R Jones]

The Met?   Most of Portugal and half the population of the UK regard their conduct as suspicious or maybe you haven't noticed and that includes many senior detectives and other professionals.  In any event, nobody outside OG knows exactly what Redwood's views are on the case, what he utters publicly has probably little in common with the truth.

Can you please provide evidence that half the population of the UK regards the McCanns as suspects please.  Frankly, I don't really give a toss what ill-informed individuals think regarding the McCanns guilt or innocence - as far as those who DO have all the information at the disposal the McCanns are not suspects, and have stated so publicly.  why you so desperately need to believe that Redwood is deceiving us is your problem, not mine.

[Angelo222]

I note nobody can answer the questions, did the book damage the search for Maddie and did the McCanns suffer unreasonable stress and damage to their reputations because of it?