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

[Brietta]

Anyone who has followed this case for any length of time will have knowledge of this.

I have been following the case since last September.  This is one internet myth I have missed out on.

Quite obviously you have no provenance for your statement so until you can provide one perhaps you should withdraw it.

[faithlilly]

The only way for the McCann children to be protected from abuse is for those who orchestrate it to desist and for as much of it as possible to be taken down.  Their parents can't do that ... only those guilty of the abuse can.

I am talking specifically about media reports of the libel trial which the McCanns, for reasons known only to themselves, didn't think it was worth protecting the twins from by holding proceedings in camera.

[faithlilly]

I have been following the case since last September.  This is one internet myth I have missed out on.

Quite obviously you have no provenance for your statement so until you can provide one perhaps you should withdraw it.

It's no myth Brietta but I'm sorry I'm not spending hours looking for a cite for you to trash because it's Portuguese, from a newspaper, from Amaral or any other excuse you'll find to trash the veracity of the evidence.

As I said anyone who has followed the case for any length of time will know my claim is true. However those who haven't can always find the evidence for themselves.

[Brietta]

It's no myth Brietta but I'm sorry I'm not spending hours looking for a cite for you to trash because it's Portuguese, from a newspaper, from Amaral or any other excuse you'll find to trash the veracity of the evidence.

As I said anyone who has followed the case for any length of time will know my claim is true. However those who haven't can always find the evidence for themselves.

Your credibility is zero.  There is no excuse for making a statement without being able to corroborate it with an independent cite.

[John]

The decision by the Supreme Court Appellate Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants.  (In a Portuguese appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the then losing party is called an 'appellant' - thus the McCanns were the appellants in this action)

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html



Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another.  Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.

[Eleanor]

You confuse the alleged book libel which was quashed with the current proceedings which are about compensation.

Compensation for what?

[stephen25000]

The decision by the Supreme Court Appellate Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html



Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another.  Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.

Agreed.

[Benice]

The decision by the Supreme Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

[b]The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
[/b]
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html



Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another.  Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.

My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place.    And until libel is established  - or not - as the case may be  - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld.     Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous. 

The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.

[stephen25000]

My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place.    And until libel is established  - or not - as the case may be  - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld.     Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous. 

The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.

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

[Eleanor]

My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place.    And until libel is established  - or not - as the case may be  - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld.     Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous. 

The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.

This is how I understand it to be.  Libel was not proven at the time.  The current Trial is being held to establish whether or not the book is Libellous.

I have never had a problem with the book ban being lifted as Libel must first be proved.

[Mr Gray]

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

very...very...very...easily

[stephen25000]

very...very...very...easily

You haven't learned from last night have you ?

[Mr Gray]

You haven't learned from last night have you ?

cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...

[Mr Gray]

cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...

the supreme court overuled the injunction to ban the book because libel had not been proved...thats what the libel trial is about to do...johns wrong on this one

[stephen25000]

cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...

You have a very short memory don't you ?