Libel trial day 14 - Statement of facts proved/not proved issued to lawyers.

[Alfred R Jones]

Right, just so's I'm clear: when the judge says it is proved that the book caused the McCanns damage what she really means is the book didn't cause them damage?  Have I got the jist of the argument now?

[stephen25000]

They must be Express readers.   

Quite possibly.

[Lyall]

Right, just so's I'm clear: when the judge says it is proved that the book caused the McCanns damage what she really means is the book didn't cause them damage?  Have I got the jist of the argument now?

If the judge hadn't said that she'd effectively be calling all their witnesses and the McCanns liars. Think about it. That was never going to happen was it.

[Angelo222]

Right, just so's I'm clear: when the judge says it is proved that the book caused the McCanns damage what she really means is the book didn't cause them damage?  Have I got the jist of the argument now?

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal.

[Alfred R Jones]

If the judge hadn't said that she'd effectively be calling all their witnesses and the McCanns liars. Think about it. That was never going to happen was it.

FYI - judges aren't employed to pussyfoot around and protect people's feelings.  They are there to state facts.  Now, she said it was proved that the book had caused the McCanns damage.  So, was she just messing about and having a laugh?

[Lyall]

I've no idea how much damage she means. Pretty much everyone thinks it can hardly have improved their situation, and we'd have thought that before the trial began. I'm just saying there was zero chance she'd be signalling she didn't believe what the witnesses were telling her.

We'll have to wait and see how much damage she means.

[Alfred R Jones]

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal.

I've read it.  Now please answer my question.

[Brietta]

If the judge hadn't said that she'd effectively be calling all their witnesses and the McCanns liars. Think about it. That was never going to happen was it.

So in effect, the judge has called Dr Amaral and all his witnesses liars?

[Alfred R Jones]

&%+((£ I've no idea how much damage she means. Pretty much everyone thinks it can hardly have improved their situation, and we'd have thought that before the trial began. I'm just saying there was zero chance she'd be signalling she didn't believe what the witnesses were telling her.

We'll have to wait and see how much damage she means.

RE; The bit in bold above.  She rejected a number of their claims by stating they were UNPROVEN.  That doesn't mean she thinks they are liars and she could certainly have rejected all their claims as UNPROVEN without inferring they were liars - but she didn't. 

[Angelo222]

I've read it.  Now please answer my question.

There was no damage over and above what is considered normal.  The psychological state predated the book.

[Alfred R Jones]

There was no damage over and above what is considered normal.

So the book caused normal amounts of damage.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Lyall]

RE; The bit in bold above.  She rejected a number of their claims by stating they were UNPROVEN.  That doesn't mean she thinks they are liars and she could certainly have rejected all their claims as UNPROVEN without inferring they were liars - but she didn't.

No because the only evidence offered to say the book and dvd made their situation worse was witness evidence. If you say that was unproven you're saying they lied.

[Angelo222]

So the book caused normal amounts of damage.  Thanks for clarifying.

The judge is obviously not prepared to condone any claim for damages in respect to psychological issues.

[Lyall]

So in effect, the judge has called Dr Amaral and all his witnesses liars?

Nope. They never offered evidence to suggest the book and dvd had no effect on the McCanns.

[Alfred R Jones]

No because the only evidence offered to say the book and dvd made their situation worse was witness evidence. If you say that was unproven you're saying they lied.

In which case she did call them liars, if what you say is correct (which it isn't, but never mind).