Poll

Do you think the judge will...

Rule case dismissed.
17 (42.5%)
Allow the claim and award substantial damages.
5 (12.5%)
Allow the claim and award token damages.
18 (45%)

Total Members Voted: 33

Voting closed: February 27, 2015, 02:50:24 PM

Author Topic: Libel trial day 14 - Statement of facts proved/not proved issued to lawyers.  (Read 147112 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Benice

However as we are constantly told arguido does not mean suspect so it isn't really an issue.

That's not the point.  What Amaral said in public about Murat was not true - and was not said for benign reasons IMO.

If it was wrongly claimed that Amaral was presently an Arguido in an ongoing case - I'm sure he would not let it pass without pointing out that this claim was a lie  - and neither would any sceptic on this board.
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
It is about damage not libel.
So if you can sue someone who lives abroad for damages why didn't the McCanns sue Amaral for damages from England (the question I asked earlier!)?

ferryman

  • Guest
So if you can sue someone who lives abroad for damages why didn't the McCanns sue Amaral for damages from England (the question I asked earlier!)?

Damages are always awarded for something.

If not libel, what?

Offline jassi

Because they wanted to punish him financially, perhaps?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

ferryman

  • Guest
Because they wanted to punish him financially, perhaps?

That's not the answer.  In all civil codes, damages are awarded for something.

Horse and cart.

There must be some infringement.

And the infringement gives rise to compensation in the form a damages award.

What is the infringement? 

stephen25000

  • Guest
Because they wanted to punish him financially, perhaps?

Pure REVENGE.

The nature of the McCann's..

Always blaming others for what they did wrong,

Offline Angelo222

So if you can sue someone who lives abroad for damages why didn't the McCanns sue Amaral for damages from England (the question I asked earlier!)?

The alleged libel was perpetrated in Portugal, by a Portuguese citizen and printed by Portuguese base publishers in Portuguese media about events which occurred in Portugal.   No English court could entertain such a claim so let's stop being silly.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

ferryman

  • Guest
Pure REVENGE.

The nature of the McCann's..

Always blaming others for what they did wrong,

So you don't count falsely accusing someone (or a couple) of something they never did as blaming others for what they did wrong (namely falsely accusing a couple of crimes for which they are innocent)?

Offline jassi

That's not the answer.  In all civil codes, damages are awarded for something.

Horse and cart.

There must be some infringement.

And the infringement gives rise to compensation in the form a damages award.

What is the infringement?

I think we are at cross purposes - I was answering Alfie's question about suing from UK, rather than in Portugal. Any ruling for damages  in UK court could not be enforced abroad.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

ferryman

  • Guest
I think we are at cross purposes - I was answering Alfie's question about suing from UK, rather than in Portugal. Any ruling for damages  in UK court could not be enforced abroad.

Ah!

OK

Beg your pardon ...


stephen25000

  • Guest
So you don't count falsely accusing someone (or a couple) of something they never did as blaming others for what they did wrong (namely falsely accusing a couple of crimes for which they are innocent)?

Until it is actually proved who is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ferryman.

Several options remain on the table,
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 02:30:46 PM by Eleanor »

Offline Alice Purjorick

Perhaps that is one of the reasons that the fund appears deleted.

Would the lawyers require interim payments as well, particularly considering the length of time this has dragged on?
Is that a typo and you really meant depleted
It might be an explanation for the appearance of "Restricted Funds" in the accounts and the cumulative expenditure of ca £400k of "Restricted Funds" in FYs 2011/2012;2012/2013;2013/2014;.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline colombosstogey

Until it is actually proved who is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ferryman.

Several options remain on the table,



TOTALLY AGREE...Stephen25000. After how many years, how many hours and how many detectives we know NOTHING.....

Its a cold case for me, and dont they usually go back to the beginning with cold cases?

I am not quite sure how anyone can actually say the parents were not responsible when there is no proof either way..... &%+((£
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 02:33:01 PM by Eleanor »

Offline John

The Express has changed its tune!   Hmm...   &%+((£   

EXCLUSIVE: ‘McCanns will lose £1m libel trial’ Judge’s initial findings go against couple

The former Portuguese detective locked in a libel battle with Kate and Gerry McCann is confident of winning the case after a judge accepted some of his arguments.

By James Murray



Last week in Lisbon Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro set out in some detail what she had found to be proven and not proven, although she has not given her final verdict.

She did not find that because of statements in the book, documentary and a newspaper interview Kate and Gerry had been “completely destroyed” from a “moral, ethical and family point of view beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them”. And she said it was not proven that they would suffer “permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite and an indefinable fear”.

The judge said this psychological state existed before the publication of the book but added that it was normal for the couple to be affected by the book and they would also have “felt badly” over allegations by Mr Amaral that they hid their daughter’s body.

However, it was not possible to determine what most people think after reading Mr Amaral’s theories, she said, and she found it was not proven that the attention of the media and of people in general diminished when Amaral’s book was published.

The judge thought it was proven that some facts in the documentary and book came from police files used by the investigation team, although others did not.

The McCanns’ lawyer, Isabel Duarte, could not be contacted by the Sunday Express for her assessment of the judge’s findings to date.

She is hoping to win £1million in damages from Mr Amaral and has always been confident of victory.

Mr Amaral, now retired and living in Lisbon after the break-up of his marriage, went on Portuguese television on Friday morning.

In a long interview he was asked why he wrote the book, and said: “The investigation was at stake, an investigation that was never defended here in Portugal, namely by someone at the top of the Policia Judiciaria and it’s me who defends those initial months of the investigation.”

Mr Amaral said the indications given so far led him to believe that the verdict, which is expected this spring, may be “favourable” to him.

Scotland Yard officers continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance but have so far failed to make a breakthrough.


www.express.co.uk/news/uk/554107/McCanns-will-lose-1m-trial-Portuguese-judge-s-initial-findings-against-Kate-and-Gerry
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 12:58:56 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.