So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Lyall]

Erm....... Oh, I know.  They are waiting for The Verdict.

They have done articles during the year when there were easy opportunities for headlines that wouldn't get them into trouble.

You'd think they'd have continued in that vein if they'd had the opportunity wouldn't you?

[Eleanor]

They have done articles during the year when there were easy opportunities for headlines that wouldn't get them into trouble.

You'd think they'd have continued in that vein if they'd had the opportunity wouldn't you?

Perhaps like me, they haven't got a clue about what is going on.

[Lyall]

Perhaps like me, they haven't got a clue about what is going on.

I know the feeling

[Eleanor]

I know the feeling

It is all dreadfully confusing, not least the language barrier.  So all we can do is wait for the verdict.  How long has this been going on for now?  And will the verdict make sense when we do get to hear it.

I somewhat doubt it, somehow.  But I do expect loads of room or speculation.

[Lyall]

It is all dreadfully confusing, not least the language barrier.  So all we can do is wait for the verdict.  How long has this been going on for now?  And will the verdict make sense when we do get to hear it.

I somewhat doubt it, somehow.  But I do expect loads of room or speculation.

18 months it will be by March. I think you're right, there will always be room for different interpretations. Perhaps communication will initially be secret, some sort of agreement will be reached, and then we'll almost certainly not know what happened between them.

Does anyone think any of the parties have the appetite (or resources) to keep the fight going indefinitely with appeals etc?

[Eleanor]

It seems longer than eighteen months, what with all the book banning stuff, and I'm pretty sure the complaint was file longer ago than that.  But no matter, the end is nigh.

Will the loser Appeal?  Probably.  What have any of them got to lose?  Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.

[Lyall]

There was no agreement to be had when it wasn't known what the law and judge says. The circumstances of cases like these are pretty unique and no two cases are exactly the same.

But if the conclusions/decisions are first given privately the resolute stances may change.

Who knows &%+((£

[Lyall]

It seems longer than eighteen months, what with all the book banning stuff, and I'm pretty sure the complaint was file longer ago than that.  But no matter, the end is nigh.

Will the loser Appeal?  Probably.  What have any of them got to lose?  Presuming that there are grounds for Appeal.

Ah right, the whole thing? About 5 and a half years isn't it?

[Lyall]

Everyone mostly forget the other three defendants. It's not the A v B it's portrayed as. If they don't want to carry on with it after this decision then one way or another it's over isn't it?

[Eleanor]

Everyone mostly forget the other three defendants. It's not the A v B it's portrayed as. If they don't want to carry on with it after this decision then one way or another it's over isn't it?

I don't know.  Supposing Goncalo Amaral loses, which is not at all certain, would it be possible for him to Appeal and for the other Defendants to drop it?

[Jean-Pierre]

Happy new year to one and all!

It depends on the verdict.  Assuming it goes in the McCanns favour, that it could be joint or individual judgement.

 If it is joint and several, then they would each be liable for all of the damages, in which case ringfencing the money may be a blessing.  It would mean that appeals made would also have to be joint and several, and that could be interesting. 

But it is also possible for the judge to consider individual liability, in which case each of the three respondants  would be able to choose to settle or appeal as they wish.   

[Alfred R Jones]

You're dodging my point: why haven't the London papers reported more from that courtroom?

Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe?  You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?

[Alice Purjorick]

Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe?  You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?

Because apart from a gross or so of saddos like us on this forum the rest of the world is bored to tears with it?
Which is about what you said so chalk it up on the calendar Alf bo ; New year's day 2015 we agreed 

[Mr Gray]

Because apart from a gross or so of saddos like us on this forum the rest of the world is bored to tears with it?
Which is about what you said so chalk it up on the calendar Alf bo ; New year's day 2015 we agreed 

not according to what I read on here...more and more people are now questioning the mccanns and the mccanns are losing support daily..
 *&*%£ *&*%£

[Lyall]

Because the details are not remotely interesting to 99.9% of the population maybe?  You missed my point which is that if what has been going on in court is of such great interest to the general public then why no great coverage in the PT press either?

They may not be greatly interested in events in a Lisbon court but the case is now part of the nation's psyche, like Lucan or the Great Train Robbery. It's so rare a case, and was such a phenomenon in 2007, that it surely always will be.

The English papers know this, or why would they keep putting the case on their front pages?

But you're right, they're not greatly interested in the fight over a book that didn't actually say very much anyway (though the documentary is clearly more challenging).