Given the Appellate Courts decision, is the libel trial a foregone conclusion?

[Mr Gray]

The Tribunal de Relação did rule on the libel and book ban and overturned the injunction and stated that no libel or damages were committed against the McCanns. And their decision was not open to an appeal. So, you have not been proven right.

According to the translation on Joanne Morais website the Tribunal did NOT rule on libel...if you cannot produce the ruling here you should stop making the claims

[Mr Moderator]

Until the nature of the crime is established, how can you establish libel ?

I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am but this case appears to rely firmly on the assumption that Dr Amaral is wrong in what he claims in his book. In the book appeal the injunction against Amaral was overturned because the Court of Appeal held that the case was not proven against him.  Surely this ongoing action falls at the same hurdle?

Ruling

Court of Appeal explained

[Mr Gray]

I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am but this case appears to rely firmly on the assumption that Dr Amaral is wrong in what he claims in his book. In the book appeal the injunction against Amaral was overturned because the Supreme Court held that the case was not proven against him.  Surely this ongoing action falls at the same hurdle?

Ruling

the book was returned for sale because the facts had not been proven,,,the ongoing trial is proving these facts...the outcome will depend on whether the judge feels the facts have now been proved

[Mr Moderator]

The Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa (Court of Appeal) justices put much emphases on the archiving report quoting as follows:-

In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"

The justices then discuss at length the dog alerts stating, "The dogs' indications cannot be used as evidence in court, but in multiple cases they provided precious help in terms of collection of evidence for the Scotland Yard and the FBI, with positive results.

... In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities - the Public Ministry and the Judiciary Police - tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts still remain to be clarified.

Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that "(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.

We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)".

They thus put the blame squarely at the feet of the complainants.

[Mr Moderator]

Their determination of the appeal concludes with:-

In a concise manner:

The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.

As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.

The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.


If the Tribunal de Relação (Court of Appeal) can state that the book does not offend any of the applicants (McCanns) fundamental rights I cannot see any lesser Court challenging that decision.

[Benice]

.....and on the presumption the mccanns have told the truth  ?

Your response has nothing to do with Amaral's 'defence' - i.e.  that the claims he makes in his book can be verified by the files and are therefore not libellous.     The following being just one example which disproves his claim.   


Quote

Wednesday May 2nd

At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.
End quote
]

Anyone who thinks that is a truthful account and is in accordance with the files is deluding themselves IMO.

[John]

Sorry, I don't follow Benice, any claims in respect of what Madeleine said are impossible to prove surely?

[Mr Gray]

Their determination of the appeal concludes with:-

In a concise manner:

The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.

As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.

The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.


If the Tribunal de Relação (Court of Appeal) can state that the book does not offend any of the applicants (McCanns) fundamental rights I cannot see any lesser Court challenging that decision.

the ruling does not mention libel....could you explain what the court means by fundamental rights...you cant

[ferryman]

The supreme court hasn't ruled on libel...there wouldn't be a libel trial if they had

In view of the proven and demonstrable lies Amaral has told that lower the McCanns' reputation, the outcome of the libel trial should be a foregone conclusion, yes.

And Dave's post that I copy is correct, yes ...

[John]

the ruling does not mention libel....could you explain what the court means by fundamental rights...you cant

Fundamental rights includes the right not to be defamed.

[John]

In view of the proven and demonstrable lies Amaral has told that lower the McCanns' reputation, the outcome of the libel trial should be a foregone conclusion, yes.

What lies?  The Appellate Court is very clear in that the content of the book reflects the official investigation at the time of the archive.   The libel action does not relate to anything Amaral has said in the intervening period.

[Eleanor]

This case is something else.  We all think we know what we are talking about, but it is all so convoluted that no one can prove anything because nothing ever comes to a conclusion.
There we all are teetering on the edge of being proved right, and something happens to set it all off again.
Seven long and weary years and here we are still all here.

Will The Libel Trial finally come to a conclusion this week?  Watch this space.

But I can't help wondering what we would all be doing without it.

[John]

This case is something else.  We all think we know what we are talking about, but it is all so convoluted that no one can prove anything because nothing ever comes to a conclusion.
There we all are teetering on the edge of being proved right, and something happens to set it all off again.
Seven long and weary years and here we are still all here.

Will The Libel Trial finally come to a conclusion this week?  Watch this space.

But I can't help wondering what we would all be doing without it.

Bravo Eleanor!     

[ferryman]

What lies?

Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on PJ's powers of arrest after Amaral had contradicted and corrected him on interpretation of the forensic results?

Not a chance.

Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation?

Outright fraudulent.

You just have to read Harrison's report to know that.

Eddie had no hesitation in picking out the Renault?

Erm .... no!

Even one of Amaral's own PJ officers knew that was nonsense and said so.

Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer?

Where is the evidence from the files?

Will that do for starters?

[Mr Gray]

Fundamental rights includes the right not to be defamed.

at the time of this ruling there was no proof the mccanns had been defamed..tahts what this trial is about