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

[Mr Gray]

according to amaral....the mccanns have not managed to prove all their points...they have proved some of their points..that's a success in my book......that's all I will respond to on this thread.

[DCI]

according to amaral....the mccanns have not managed to prove all their points...they have proved some of their points..that's a success in my book......that's all I will respond to on this thread.

27 points Proved.
  7 points Not proved
  3 points Nil points

[stephen25000]

27 points Proved.
  7 points Not proved
  3 points Nil points

Now can you provide a transcript showing all these points.

and more poignantly which ones were in contention.

[jassi]

Now can you provide a transcript showing all these points.

and more poignantly which ones were in contention.

Certainly a lot less than 27

[stephen25000]

Certainly a lot less than 27

Indeed.

Unless you believe in magic.

[Alice Purjorick]

Certainly a lot less than 27

It all sounds rather like the scoring system in Gaelic Football.
I wonder how many items detailed in the writ were proven?
It's such a shame we will not not know until possibly Octember.

[DCI]

Now can you provide a transcript showing all these points.

and more poignantly which ones were in contention.

Read them and you will see.

[stephen25000]

Read them and you will see.

Provide all the points then.

[Alice Purjorick]

Provide all the points then.

Nah! you don't want to know the ones where somebody proved what day of the week it was.

Random selection of four proven points courtesy Astro:

17. Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon become aware of the conclusions that are mentioned in J), because they will go to school?
 

It is proved that Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010 and have not learned about Mr Amaral's thesis yet.
 
 

18. 63.369 copies of the DVD were not sold, having been destroyed afterwards?
Proved.
 
 
19. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has gone into retirement from the Polícia Judiciária on 1.6.2008?

Proved that he retired on July 1st, 2008.
 
 
20. On 22.6.2008, the Attorney General’s Office published a note for the media, announcing the archiving of the inquiry, awaiting better evidence?

It is proved that such a note was issued on the 21st of July of 2008, the note also informed that the case could be reopened if new evidence appeared and prompted relevant diligences.

Mind bending stuff what? apart from 17. Which basically says; well let me not paraphrase when we can all read it and work out what it has proved.

[John]

There appears to be some confusion over the Portuguese civil court procedure and in particular the previously mentioned "Allegations in law" and when they are presented.  Like many, I have found this confusing.

To clarify, there are two occasions when these are presented by lawyers.  Firstly, oral allegations in respect of and following the conclusion of the evidence.  And secondly, written allegations in respect of the list of proven facts which the judge previously provided to lawyers.

This full explanation should help...



4- What is the basic trial structure?

While the parties must provide proof to support their respective positions, judges may order certain actions to clarify the alleged facts, provided they preserve the right of defence of both parties.

At the end of the trial, attorneys will produce oral allegations on the facts presented in the trial, explaining which of them (and why) should or should not be considered proved. Afterwards the judge will pass a decision on the facts, explaining which facts (of the list prepared in the preliminary hearing) are considered to have been proved by the court, why and on which grounds.

The parties will subsequently be allowed to file written submissions containing their final legal allegations, through which they will describe their understanding of the law applying to the facts evidenced.

The court is then expected to render its award on the case. The court is bound by the facts alleged by the parties and by the relief sought, but is free to apply the law to the facts as it deems more correct; in particular, the court shall not be limited by any legal qualification given to the facts by the parties.

As a general rule, trials run on consecutive days.

It is a fundamental principle of Portuguese procedural law that court sessions are open to the public. In exceptional circumstances, the public may be excluded from hearings, to protect parties’ dignity or to guarantee the normal working of the court. Court documents are not available to the public. However, third parties may access court records if they are able to show a legitimate interest.

As written statements are not generally foreseen in the law – except for cases where it is impossible or difficult to have the witness appear in court – all the testimonies are made live and orally.


www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=2914

[Montclair]

Thank you, John!

[Carana]

This section doesn't make sense to me at the moment.

3. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” an amount that is not less than € 621.000,00?

4. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of editions in foreign languages of the book an amount that is not less than € 498.750,00?

(Items 3&4) It is proved that Gonçalo Amaral earned 342.111,86 euro from the sales of the book in the years 2008 and 2009. This information is based on data from the Portuguese Revenue Agency.

5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.”?

Not proved.

(...)

7.  7. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the DVD an amount that is not less than € 112.500,00?

Proved that he earned 40.000 euro from DVD sales in 2008. Based on info from the Revenue Service.



I'm wondering if there's a mistake somewhere. There are four defendants, yet the only points of fact related to alleged revenue concern Amaral? Or are the higher amounts in question the total of estimated gross revenue for all four defendants and only Amaral's needed clarification?

[Anna]

This section doesn't make sense to me at the moment.

3. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” an amount that is not less than € 621.000,00?

4. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of editions in foreign languages of the book an amount that is not less than € 498.750,00?

(Items 3&4) It is proved that Gonçalo Amaral earned 342.111,86 euro from the sales of the book in the years 2008 and 2009. This information is based on data from the Portuguese Revenue Agency.

5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.”?

Not proved.

(...)

7.  7. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the DVD an amount that is not less than € 112.500,00?

Proved that he earned 40.000 euro from DVD sales in 2008. Based on info from the Revenue Service.



I'm wondering if there's a mistake somewhere. There are four defendants, yet the only points of fact related to alleged revenue concern Amaral? Or are the higher amounts in question the total of estimated gross revenue for all four defendants and only Amaral's needed clarification?

It does appear to be only Amaral.
Could it be an account of his capital to estimate affordability ….for Damage pay out reasons, should damage payment be valid in the verdict? I don't know about the others though.

[John]

Thank you, John!

My pleasure. 

Reading back through this thread there appeared to be a bit of confusion about this aspect of Portuguese Law so clarification was needed and hopefully I have provided it.

[Montclair]

It does appear to be only Amaral.
Could it be an account of his capital to estimate affordability ….for Damage pay out reasons, should damage payment be valid in the verdict? I don't know about the others though.

It seems that one of the "quesitos" (questions on the list of 37) was with regard to the amount Gonçalo Amaral had earned from the book and the DVD. From the answer, he has earned about one third of what the McCanns claimed he earned.