So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[slartibartfast]

How can this be a libel case?...
8th july 2014



There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when Gerry McCann claims that he has something to say.

The judge - says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!

GMC - says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...

The judge interrupts him - The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.

GMC - But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

The judge - The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Sort of clarifies what the trial is about doesn't it.

[Mr Gray]

Sort of clarifies what the trial is about doesn't it.

perhaps if you took this statement in the whole context of the trial you would understand what is going on

[slartibartfast]

perhaps if you took this statement in the whole context of the trial you would understand what is going on

I'll just believe what the judge says the trial is about.

[Mr Gray]

I'll just believe what the judge says the trial is about.

Then you might want to know exactly what the judge said..in context...and not a garbled translation...some of which have already been proved to be wrong

[stephen25000]

Then you might want to know exactly what the judge said..in context...and not a garbled translation...some of which have already been proved to be wrong

No dave, stop clutching at straws.

[Benice]

Interesting definition; I don't know how applicable it is to Portuguese libel.

For example, in Amaral's book he says something to the effect that in recent years there has been a drug called calpol-night.

Whilst (at the time he wrote it) that was literally true, and whilst Amaral stopped (just) short of saying Madeleine was given it, that is the impression far too many people formed, and Joana Morais in particular wrote a vicious and libellous blog on the subject.

Certainly by UK libel law, that reference (in Amaral's book) would be libel.

I really don't know whether the same would be true in Portugal

Here is what Amaral says about calpol-night:

MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns’ home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl – and also the twins – Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a “Calpol generation.” In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.

Apart from the fact that Calpol has no sedative properties and so it is untrue to claim it facilitated sleep  - the innuendo in that para is glaringly obvious IMO.

I notice that what we know as a Reward Star Chart is described as a Medical monitoring chart and so is completely misleading.     IIRC Kate mentions in her book that when she described the reward chart - the PJ insisted on calling it a 'Punishment' Chart!

I suppose the language barrier or the differences in culture could be responsible for that misinterpretation - although IMO one wouldn't need to be a genius to be able to understand Kate's description.  Reward charts are commonplace nowadays.

His book is littered with similar innuendo IMO - all designed to mislead his readers.


 

[stephen25000]

As regards Calpol.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol.html


and it includes what could happen with overdoses.

[Carana]

How can this be a libel case?...
8th july 2014



There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when Gerry McCann claims that he has something to say.

The judge - says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!

GMC - says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...

The judge interrupts him - The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.

GMC - But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

The judge - The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

From the trial in which the injunction was granted:
...In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html

I'm not sure who the third defendant is (quite possibly TVI), but it might mean that press laws would apply. If that's the case, the legal presumption that applied to Murat might also apply in this case.

This article in the Civil Code has always intrigued me.

ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)

Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Código_Civil_Português

The translation of this (found in some legal document)

Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."

To me, that sounds as if it doesn't really matter whether what is published / stated is true or not, i.e., the point being whether whatever was said / written caused damage. However, Murat initially lost his case...

Hmm. The mysteries of PT law... &%+((£

[stephen25000]

From the trial in which the injunction was granted:
...In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html

I'm not sure who the third defendant is (quite possibly TVI), but it might mean that press laws would apply. If that's the case, the legal presumption that applied to Murat might also apply in this case.

This article in the Civil Code has always intrigued me.

ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)

Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Código_Civil_Português

The translation of this (found in some legal document)

Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."

To me, that sounds as if it doesn't really matter whether what is published / stated is true or not, i.e., the point being whether whatever was said / written caused damage. However, Murat initially lost his case...

Hmm. The mysteries of PT law... &%+((£

There lies the crux of the matter.

The mccanns have singularly failed to show the book harmed any 'search'.

Amaral's thesis was not isolated to him.

It was a working hypothesis, which has not been disproved, i.e. that Madeleine died in the apartment. Redwood himself has admitted that.

As to psychological damage, they have also failed to show that.

Not one medical practitioner has come forward to back that up with ANY empirical evidence whatsoever.

P.S. Pike doesn't count.

As to the ward of court issue, what has happened there ?

[Benice]

Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.

IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual.   That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.

It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.

[stephen25000]

Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.

IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual.   That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.

It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.

Completely irrelevant.

Have you forgotten a simple principle ?

People can make up their own minds on the case and don't have to be brainwashed by the mccanns story.

[Benice]

Completely irrelevant.

Have you forgotten a simple principle ?

People can make up their own minds on the case and don't have to be brainwashed by the mccanns story.

If the book is irrelevant why do people use it as a source of evidence to back up their claims?

[ferryman]

If the book is irrelevant why do people use it as a source of evidence to back up their claims?

I wouldn't say the book is irrelevant, but its relevance is a malign one.

It encourages people to believe Madeleine is dead, and therefore harms the search for her.

[faithlilly]

Quotes from Amarals book are often used as 'evidence' by sceptics.

IIRC a ''Goncalo Amaral Day'' was created in his honour by those who believe his book to be factual.   That would appear to be evidence of the influence it had on members of the public imo.

It's clear it did have an adverse impact, but whether that impact can be quantifiable with enough accuracy to satisfy a court is questionable IMO.

If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'

[stephen25000]

If the impact is a fact then you will be able to give us at least one example where that impact adversely affected the 'search'

They can't and they know it.