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

[ferryman]

I think you've missed the point John.   In his book  Amaral changed the date from the 3rd May to the 2nd for when Madeleine spoke to her parents and also changed what they reported she had said to them about herself and Sean.   

If Amaral decided to change or leave out part of the 'evidence' given by her parents so that he could convince his readers to believe what he wanted them to believe  - then he should have made it clear in his book that he had altered their evidence -  and NOT claim that what he wrote in his book was factually correct and was in the files - as that is patently untrue.

Amaral also claimed in his book that the Gaspars gave  a joint statement, which is extraordinary, since standard procedure of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual statements.

Amaral also totally misrepresented Mrs G's statement ...

[Carana]

Amaral also claimed in his book that the Gaspars gave  a joint statement, which is extraordinary, since standard procedure of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual statements.

Amaral also totally misrepresented Mrs G's statement ...

Interestingly, he seems to have ignored her husband's statement. And glossed over the Smith family members who didn't agree with Martin's doubt.

[ferryman]

I believe that I already posted a few days ago that MP did not need to be consulted over making someone an arguido, according to what I'd found. As threads and posts disappear, do you have a CPP article to cite the contrary?

Amaral even says something in his book about that, although I would have to hunt down the specific passage ...

[Montclair]

I believe that I already posted a few days ago that MP did not need to be consulted over making someone an arguido, according to what I'd found. As threads and posts disappear, do you have a CPP article to cite the contrary?

You may have posted that a few days ago but that does not make it true.

[Carana]

You may have posted that a few days ago but that does not make it true.

Not the point I was looking for but... what is your understanding of this aspect?

Article 58. Point 3 in particular: unless I've misunderstood, either the MP or the PJ can establish arguido status. If the PJ does so, this has to be communicated within 10 days to the judicial authorities for validation.

13
2 — A constituição de arguido opera-se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar-se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.o que por essa razão passam a caber-lhe.
3 — A constituição de arguido feita por órgão de polícia criminal é comunicada à autoridade judiciária no prazo de 10 dias e por esta apreciada, em ordem à sua validação, no prazo de 10 dias.

This is from the CPP 2007. Some changes have been made to the code since then.

[Montclair]

Not the point I was looking for but... what is your understanding of this aspect?

Article 58. Point 3 in particular: unless I've misunderstood, either the MP or the PJ can establish arguido status. If the PJ does so, this has to be communicated within 10 days to the judicial authorities for validation.

13
2 — A constituição de arguido opera-se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar-se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.o que por essa razão passam a caber-lhe.
3 — A constituição de arguido feita por órgão de polícia criminal é comunicada à autoridade judiciária no prazo de 10 dias e por esta apreciada, em ordem à sua validação, no prazo de 10 dias.

This is from the CPP 2007. Some changes have been made to the code since then.

As you can see, if it is the police who make someone an "arguido", this decision must be given to the judicial authority, within 10 days, who then decide to validate it or not. Therefore, the final decision is made by the judge.

[Benice]

Interestingly, he seems to have ignored her husband's statement. And glossed over the Smith family members who didn't agree with Martin's doubt.

[/b]


That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.

Quote from his book

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote

IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did.  In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.

Lying by omission IMO.  i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.

[Carana]

As you can see, if it is the police who make someone an "arguido", this decision must be given to the judicial authority, within 10 days, who then decide to validate it or not. Therefore, the final decision is made by the judge.

That's why I quoted both points. Someone on here was saying that the PJ couldn't make someone arguido. They can, but subject to validation within 10 days.

[Carana]

[/b]


That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.

Quote from his book

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote

IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did.  In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.

Lying by omission IMO.  i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.

Well... I can see how he got out of this in his book as he must have been referring to the initial email sent on during his tenure concerning Martin Smith's doubt. The 60-80% issue came later and so he could claim that this wasn't known at the time he left.

However, he has stated that Martin Smith was 80% sure (forgetting the 60-80% based on the way in which Gerry was simply carrying the child) in various interviews.

So... if he acknowledges that, then he must have consulted the files after his departure. If he has, then how come he hasn't corrected all sorts of details which, post-departure, were found to be unfounded?

[Carana]

I think you've missed the point John.   In his book  Amaral changed the date from the 3rd May to the 2nd for when Madeleine spoke to her parents and also changed what they reported she had said to them about herself and Sean.   

If Amaral decided to change or leave out part of the 'evidence' given by her parents so that he could convince his readers to believe what he wanted them to believe  - then he should have made it clear in his book that he had altered their evidence -  and NOT claim that what he wrote in his book was factually correct and was in the files - as that is patently untrue.

Yes, I agree, Benice. Why did he change the date? A genuine or a convenient mistake?

[Carana]

Clearly the average reader is supposed (by Amaral's lights) to interpret it as collusion by the FSS to cover up the misdeeds of the nefarious McCanns.

And no doubt some have.

The other complication is if the present enquiry establishes that the worst has happened to Madeleine.

Then Amaral could (doubtless would!) claim that his book didn't damage the search for Madeleine because Madeleine was dead.

Then, I would expect the McCanns to receive a (nominal) sum for established libel, and Amaral will waltz off into the sunset with an obscenely large proportion of his ill-gotten-gains from the proceeds of a flea-bitten book

Even if the McCanns win, quantifiably proven damages are likely to be peanuts (although court costs might be fairly hefty).

However, even a little body were found tomorrow, I don't see how that would necessarily affect the alleged damage.

a) Even if it could be proven that she'd died that evening, if her remains had been anywhere where someone could have stumbled upon them (or something significant), but didn't report it because it didn't coincide with his version, then that surely constitutes further suffering for a family in limbo.

b) She might have been alive for some time (cf the Dutroux kids), in which case his continued assertions that she'd died that night would be... beyond words.

She might still be alive, but the people who find him to be a hero and believe the tabloid TV matinée shows with himself and /or his pals, and then gossip with others won't pay attention to a child who is now 10 years old who might be her.

[faithlilly]

What is there to object to about them learning about court proceedings?

If you can't see what's wrong with exposing two nine year olds to what has been said in that courtroom then I can't possibly explain it to you.

[ferryman]

[/b]


That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.

Quote from his book

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote

IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did.  In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.

Lying by omission IMO.  i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.

I'd not picked that up before.

It's a shrewd observation and bang on right, save for one small detail. 

I'd say it's lying by commission, not omission.

Mr Smith in his statement is very explicit that only his wife thought the same as him.

[Carana]

If you can't see what's wrong with exposing two none year olds to what has been said in that courtroom then I can't possibly explain it to you.

If the twins read or hear about accounts of court proceedings in the defamation case, where both sides are defended in a court of justice, is that better or worse than trying to explain to your other children that the head cop who was supposed to be looking for their big sister had decided that she was dead and that mummy and daddy had hidden her body, with no credible evidence to support that?

Which has more educational value?

[ferryman]

Even if the McCanns win, quantifiably proven damages are likely to be peanuts (although court costs might be fairly hefty).

However, even a little body were found tomorrow, I don't see how that would necessarily affect the alleged damage.

a) Even if it could be proven that she'd died that evening, if her remains had been anywhere where someone could have stumbled upon them (or something significant), but didn't report it because it didn't coincide with his version, then that surely constitutes further suffering for a family in limbo.

b) She might have been alive for some time (cf the Dutroux kids), in which case his continued assertions that she'd died that night would be... beyond words.

She might still be alive, but the people who find him to be a hero and believe the tabloid TV matinée shows with himself and /or his pals, and then gossip with others won't pay attention to a child who is now 10 years old who might be her.

Why is Amaral the one running away if he has, even an outside chance, of winning?

And given all that is demonstrably untrue, lowers reputation and fosters the belief that Madeleine is dead, why is not the case that Amaral has damaged the search for Madeleine proved?

Quantifiable damages? 

The amount Amaral has made in propagating the message in his book and in interviews that Madeleine is dead.