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

[stephen25000]

If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent

How many of the 'mccann' witnesses were in Portugal at the time of the events ?

[faithlilly]

Proceedings were held up in Lisbon when Amaral petitioned to have the hearings held in camera, but that was rejected by the judge.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens

As usual ... never let an opportunity go past without getting the boot into the Drs McCann ... the Judge apparently prefers justice to be seen to be delivered in an open court where there is no ambiguity because the proceedings are transparent.

Wonder what was so important that Dr Amaral preferred it to be discussed in private?

I'm more concerned with why the McCanns didn't support Amaral's request.

[Eleanor]

How many of the 'mccann' witnesses were in Portugal at the time of the events ?

Is this relevant?

[stephen25000]

Is this relevant?

Read davel's comment.

He brought up the matter of the mccann witnesses.

Now if any of the 'witlessness's' weren't in Portugal, what relevance do they have  ?

[Eleanor]

Read davel's comment.

He brought up the matter of the mccann witnesses.

Now if any of the 'witlessness's' weren't in Portugal, what relevance do they have  ?

They have watched The McCanns suffer for seven years.  They didn't have to be there at the time of the event to do that. 

Plain common sense, really.

[stephen25000]

They have watched The McCanns suffer for seven years.  They didn't have to be there at the time of the event to do that. 

Plain common sense, really.

However, more pertinently, they weren't there, were they ?

They did not witness the events.

So at the very best they were character witnesses.

and who is the author of the mccanns  'suffering' ?

[ferryman]

IMO Amaral wanted the trial held in camera so that his supporters would not see the paucity of his case.

I disagree.

Santos' cited reason for the request was to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

That broadcast the weakness of Amaral's position in three-foot (or about a metre) high neon lights, emblazoned across the sky.

In fact, it left me convinced that Amaral had capitulated and, to this day, I still can't work out how it didn't.

Particularly in the light of the summary in the last chapter of Amaral's book, how could it not?

[Carana]

If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent

Trying to answer this as I find what I'm looking for. Re burden of proof in PT civil cases:

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_por_en.htm

[Carana]

If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent

Re the point about Amaral's witnesses: I can only presume that his witnesses were defending his honour in terms of what he believed to be true. However, I find it odd that a number of them stated that they hadn't actually read the book (or only bits of it) or watched the documentary.

Re: why would the witnesses for the McCanns need to to try to prove them innocent? Innocent of what? From memory, they were attesting to the added suffering, over and above the torment of their missing little girl, as a result of Amaral's spoutings. This would seem to concern the damage aspect which, unlike the UK, somehow needs to be proven.

[ferryman]

Trying to answer this as I find what I'm looking for. Re burden of proof in PT civil cases:

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_por_en.htm

An alarm bell for Amaral?

The above rules are reversed when there is a legal presumption (consequence or inference which the law deduces from a known fact to establish an unknown one) , exemption or release from the obligation to comply with the above rules for the production of proof, or a valid agreement to that effect, when the opposing party has, culpably, made it impossible for the proof to be presented by the party which should produce it, and, in general, whenever the law so determines.

[Carana]

An alarm bell for Amaral?

The above rules are reversed when there is a legal presumption (consequence or inference which the law deduces from a known fact to establish an unknown one) , exemption or release from the obligation to comply with the above rules for the production of proof, or a valid agreement to that effect, when the opposing party has, culpably, made it impossible for the proof to be presented by the party which should produce it, and, in general, whenever the law so determines.

I'm not sure what that means though, FM. Wouldn't that be e.g., hiding proof that could prove that your allegation was false? If that's the case, I don't think he went that far.

[ferryman]

I'm not sure what that means though, FM. Wouldn't that be e.g., hiding proof that could prove that your allegation was false? If that's the case, I don't think he went that far.

Preventing key witnesses from testifying?

[Carana]

Preventing key witnesses from testifying?

Who?

[ferryman]

Who?

The McCanns.

Attempt number 2 tomorrow.

Maybe it'll succeed.

Maybe not ...

[Mr Gray]

Re the point about Amaral's witnesses: I can only presume that his witnesses were defending his honour in terms of what he believed to be true. However, I find it odd that a number of them stated that they hadn't actually read the book (or only bits of it) or watched the documentary.

Re: why would the witnesses for the McCanns need to to try to prove them innocent? Innocent of what? From memory, they were attesting to the added suffering, over and above the torment of their missing little girl, as a result of Amaral's spoutings. This would seem to concern the damage aspect which, unlike the UK, somehow needs to be proven.

The point I am making is that some have said that the burden of proof is on the mccanns to prove amaral wrong.
What I am seeing from the witnesses is that amaral is trying to prove his thesis is reasonable whilst the McCanns are calling witnesses to quantify their suffering....that makes me think the burden of proof is on amaral