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

[ferryman]

If it is correct that it doesn't matter under PT law that the book contains lies - then that explains why it is so difficult to win a libel case in Portugal.     The opposite is the case in this country.

I'm thinking of the Judge's reply to Gerry regarding the claims made about the dogs in the book being untrue.  Didn't she say that the truth or otherwise of those claims was not an issue to be considered?  (or words to that effect).

Questions of truth or untruth do matter in any court proceedings -- and particularly in a libel trial.  How can they not?  If you could tell lies that lower reputation and yet not be guilty of libel, that would negate the libel laws.

I think the key point, here, is what is covered by the remit of the McCanns' action.  Their action is against the book, against the film and against Amaral's pronouncements in various interviews.

So was it (as the McCanns claim) Amaral's pronouncements in these various outlets that caused their damage?

Or was it the actual process which declared them arguidos?

The judge seems to tend to the view that it was the process rather than Amaral's various pronouncements that caused the damage.

Which lets Amaral off (at least a part) of the hook.

But not all of it ...

[stephen25000]

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/interview-with-ex-coordinator.html?spref=tw

[Carana]

None of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and now it seems that he is an arguido again.

Murat was interviewed as a witness, wasn't he? i don't recall reading anything about him being made an arguido again...

[Montclair]

Alfred:

Goncalo says:

That decision says that it is not proved that I caused the couple any damages, social or psychological or moral damages

The Judge says

Quote
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.

Yes, the judge doesn't dispute that the McCanns have been damaged, and certainly doesn't dispute that Amaral's book is littered with lies, half-truths and outright fabrications. 

The point of contention seems to be whether the damage was caused by the book or by the process.

Since the process damaged the McCanns, in large part, by incompetent mismanagement of the process, and in particular, incompetent interpretation of the forensic results, that appears to let Amaral's book off a large part of the hook.

Lucky (for Amaral).

Why didn't you post the entire text:

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann?

Not proved.

12. 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 are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?

Not proved.

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.

[Lyall]

If it is correct that it doesn't matter under PT law that the book contains lies - then that explains why it is so difficult to win a libel case in Portugal.     The opposite is the case in this country.

I'm thinking of the Judge's reply to Gerry regarding the claims made about the dogs in the book being untrue.  Didn't she say that the truth or otherwise of those claims was not an issue to be considered?  (or words to that effect).

Who determines that they are lies?

The judge seemed to indicate that isn't the court's job.

[ferryman]

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.

[Montclair]

Thank you very much for posting that interview, Montclair;  I haven't had time to study it in any depth at the moment nor watch the video.

My initial impression is not so much what Dr Amaral is saying ... but the tone of and the questions being asked by the anchor ... IMO far removed from fawning anchors and interviews of the past.

I think there is a change in attitude to the Drs McCann in Portugal, I think people are realising there is more than one side to Madeleine McCann's story ... for example a statement like ... Anchor – In this case, this investigation was very traumatising, very disorganised … is unheard of.

It has been a long time coming ... unless Isabel Duarte has 'got at' the anchor too,

On the contrary, the questions from the anchor were very good and pertinent because they gave Gonçalo Amaral the opportunity to refute certain arguments that had been put out by certain parties and also to explain the civil case in a clear and understandable manner.

[DCI]

None of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and now it seems that he is an arguido again.

Murat was interviewed as a witness, wasn't he? i don't recall reading anything about him being made an arguido again...

Still telling his porkies I see.

Gonçalo Amaral – I met them but the questioning was performed by others, by inspectors. A coordinator does not question directly, that was done by the inspectors. But I met them.

Good to see him still spouting his mouth off, the case isn't finished yet. Hope the judge is watching him.

[jassi]

If Amaral is saying that he met the McCanns, who is contradicting that by saying that he didn't?

[stephen25000]

Things didn't go to plan.

Hmmm.

http://portuguese-american-journal.com/update-kate-and-gerry-mccann-suffer-legal-setback-portugal/

[Alice Purjorick]

Things didn't go to plan.

Hmmm.

http://portuguese-american-journal.com/update-kate-and-gerry-mccann-suffer-legal-setback-portugal/

Have you noticed how, in the report from Astro and others including the one you link, the word libel is hard to find?

[DCI]

Have you noticed how, in the report from Astro and others including the one you link, the word libel is hard to find?

Does this count?

Anne Guedes: Libel Damages Trial Reports direct from Court House, Starting 12 September 2013

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

Does this count?

Anne Guedes: Libel Damages Trial Reports direct from Court House, Starting 12 September 2013

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm

I rather think I was referring to the content of recent reports, like since 21st January 2015, rather than an a months old heading on a website. 

[Mr Gray]

Have you noticed how, in the report from Astro and others including the one you link, the word libel is hard to find?

I think astro and others will be avoiding the word libel like a plague seeing as some are claiming this trial will not decide libel. Libel is an English word so will not be found in the court judgement. What we have seen is " damage" and the EU court speaks of damage to reputation...not libel...so lets see if the McCanns are awarded damages for damage to reputation...then you and others can claim this trial is not about libel.

[stephen25000]

I think astro and others will be avoiding the word libel like a plague seeing as some are claiming this trial will not decide libel. Libel is an English word so will not be found in the court judgement. What we have seen is " damage" and the EU court speaks of damage to reputation...not libel...so lets see if the McCanns are awarded damages for damage to reputation...then you and others can claim this trial is not about libel.

How can you award damages to people who damaged themselves by the neglect of their children ?