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

[Carana]

If the McCanns have Stuart Prior's report (I'm sure they will have) they should easily be able to establish that Amaral lied about contradicting and correcting Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.

And why did Amaral go to the Portuguese Forensic laboratory rather than the FSS for an explanation of the FSS' work in establishing Madeleine's DNA from a sample of saliva Gerry provided them?

They might well have, but can that be presented in this (civil) case?

[ferryman]

They might well have, but can that be presented in this (civil) case?

Yes.

Comparison of the case files with the content of Amaral's book

The ex-parte judgement overruling the injunction on the book (bizarrely) found that Amaral's book conformed with the case files so (difficult though that may be to believe) the judges must have made  that judgment having read the case files.

If the case files were available for comparison in the dispute over the injunction, they will be available again for the dispute over the libel trial.

[Carana]

Yes.

Comparison of the case files with the content of Amaral's book

The ex-parte judgement overruling the injunction on the book (bizarrely) found that Amaral's book conformed with the case files so (difficult though that may be to believe) the judges must have made  that judgment having read the case files.

If the case files were available for comparison in the dispute over the injunction, they will be available again for the dispute over the libel trial.

Possibly, but would confidential UK police reports be allowed? Perhaps, as Amaral's lawyer was allowed to quote from Rainbow's report... 

[Carana]

do you still think this is not a libel trial...does anyone think this is not a libel trial

I don't think it's a trial of libel in the UK sense. In the Murat appeal, the judge acknowledged that many of the allegations couldn't be proven one way or the other.

Some aspects may be proven to be false or misleading, and others will be found to be contained in the files. Whether or not something contained in the files is actually true or not (e.g. a witness statement is a matter of fact, but whether what the witness actually said was verified, correctly translated and noted is a different issue). Reading up, I noticed Ferryman pointed out a number of other points, as well.

IMO, the judge will have to decide which allegations can be determined as factual, false /misleading or "dunno".

The judge will no doubt take into account his right to his "personal and professional honour" as well as the Amaral & co thinking at the time and whatever seems to be accurate according to the files. I would certainly hope that the judge will also take into account whether Amaral & co were actually sufficiently trained, experienced and competent to justify those allegations, and what the average reader / viewer would have retained as a conclusion, based on the assumption that the team were, in fact, experienced professionals in this type of investigation.

Then there is the whole issue of how to prove direct damage caused by the book / film, etc, and whether indirect damage can be taken into account or not.

How much credence would the average reader give to the author as the former lead on the investigation, as opposed to the same allegations made by some anonymous person who wasn't involved? If the credence is higher, how did that affect the reader's / viewer's perception? If that perception was that Madeleine was definitely dead and the parents were involved, with no credible evidence to back it up, would those same people remain vigilant for a potentially living little girl? How depressing would that be for the parents who had counted on a competent investigation? What effect could that have had on the twins? What security measures have had to be taken?

On the other side, some threats seem to have originated prior to his book, but PJ leaks under his watch will probably not be taken into account in this trial (cf the Murat appeal).

And then, if accepted... how to quantify it.

The bottom line for me, at the moment, in terms of what I can decipher of PT law is... dunno.

[faithlilly]

[ quote removed ]

Brietta also uses Miss Morais as her source on another thread so I'm sure she won't mind if I do too.

[Carana]

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.

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

[ferryman]

Amaral alleges that Madeleine is definitely dead.

He alleges that on the basis of the reactions of the dogs

[ unestablished claim removed ]

An allegation of that nature, coming from the former (first) co-ordinator of the investigation will damage the search for Madeleine, because people will be encouraged to think Madeleine is dead and will no longer look out for her.

Amaral has both damaged the search for Madeleine and lowered the reputations of the McCanns with falsehoods at least of which are manifestly lies ...

[Carana]

Amaral alleges that Madeleine is definitely dead.

He alleges that on the basis of the reactions of the dogs

[ unestablished claim removed ]

An allegation of that nature, coming from the former (first) co-ordinator of the investigation will damage the search for Madeleine, because people will be encouraged to think Madeleine is dead and will no longer look out for her.

Amaral has both damaged the search for Madeleine and lowered the reputations of the McCanns with falsehoods at least of which are manifestly lies ...

I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.

He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?

[ferryman]

I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.

He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?

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

[Montclair]

I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.

He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?

Of course, he understood the forensics. The police in Portugal, both local and British, were informed regularly on the results. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter at all what Gonçalo Amaral thought or not as it was not his decision to make them arguidos.

[Carana]

Of course, he understood the forensics. The police in Portugal, both local and British, were informed regularly on the results. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter at all what Gonçalo Amaral thought or not as it was not his decision to make them arguidos.

He did understand the forensics? There's a thread on that somewhere here...

ETA: whose decision was it to make them arguidos? I already posted a link on this, if I can find it again.

Where is it stated that the PJ don't have this authority?

[ferryman]

Of course, he [Amaral] understood the forensics.

Better than Prior, apparently.

Amaral even understood what the rest of us dunderheads misunderstood as an explanatory email from John Lowe to Stuart Prior to be, actually, a preliminary report ...

[Montclair]

He did understand the forensics? There's a thread on that somewhere here...

ETA: whose decision was it to make them arguidos? I already posted a link on this, if I can find it again.

Where is it stated that the PJ don't have this authority?

After all this time, so many people still refuse to understand how a criminal investigation is carried out in Portugal. It is the judge, that is the Ministério Público, who decides whether to make someone an arguido or not. It is not just one policeman who makes this decision. Maybe one day you will finally understand this concept.

[Benice]

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

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.

 

[Carana]

After all this time, so many people still refuse to understand how a criminal investigation is carried out in Portugal. It is the judge, that is the Ministério Público, who decides whether to make someone an arguido or not. It is not just one policeman who makes this decision. Maybe one day you will finally understand this concept.

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?