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

[Mr Gray]

You have a very short memory don't you ?

no..as usual I have been shown to be right...produce posts if you claim otherwise

[Benice]

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

[/b]

You prove that the claims made in Amaral's book are untrue.

E.g..

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


Is that a true statement which can be verified by the Files? 

[stephen25000]

no..as usual I have been shown to be right...produce posts if you claim otherwise

and the Portuguese lawyer ???

[stephen25000]

[/b]

You prove that the claims made in Amaral's book are untrue.

E.g..

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


Is that a true statement which can be verified by the Files?

Shall we wait for the result of the trial.

[Mr Gray]

its obvious libel has already been proved..we are just waiting for the official verdict...depends how long amaral can delay it

[Benice]

Shall we wait for the result of the trial.

I would still appreciate your opinion on the statement made by Amaral in his book (below).   Would you agree that it is not a true statement?


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

[Montclair]

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

The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.

[Montclair]

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:

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.

This is the decision by the Tribunal de Relação (the appeals court) not the Supreme Court and this decision was not open for appeal but the McCanns insisted anyway on appealing to the SC.

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.

libel has not been decided...thats what the libel trial is about to decide.......you are wrong

[Montclair]

libel has not been decided...thats what the libel trial is about to decide.......you are wrong

What was wrong with what I have just posted?

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.

supreme court did not rule on libel...where is teh ruling on libel by the Tribunal de Relaco

[Montclair]

supreme court did not rule on libel...where is teh ruling on libel by the Tribunal de Relaco

That's what I just said, that the SC did not rule on the libel aspect at all. All they did was reject the appeal saying that it was not within their remit. I suggest that you try googling and read the "acordão" of 19 October 2010 of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa.

[Mr Gray]

That's what I just said, that the SC did not rule on the libel aspect at all. All they did was reject the appeal saying that it was not within their remit. I suggest that you try googling and read the "acordão" of 19 October 2010 of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa.

So the supreme court has not ruled on libel as Luz and John have claimed..thank you for proving me right..the libel trial resumes on the 8th

[faithlilly]

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

Here you are Brietta and remember no sniping at the source just because you don't like the message !

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/temporary-injunction-granted-on.html#uds-search-results

Now how about posting those links to Amaral's alleged phone call to Correaia's clients ?

[Montclair]

So the supreme court has not ruled on libel as Luz and John have claimed..thank you for proving me right..the libel trial resumes on the 8th

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.