Libel ....

[Alfie]

You didnt read my post fully, the ringfenced money seems to be being reported as gobbled up if they lose! And they are going for the gamble!
its long past ideas about bloody principles....if yu have a pound to look for your kid and you gamble it what can i say

Why ring-fence the money in the first place?  I thought we were not to believe everything we read in the papers anyway.... &%+((£

[Alice Purjorick]

Not in a country that has proper libel laws like England.

Make no mistake that in England, the recently introduced defence of honest comment notwithstanding, Amaral's book would be blown out of the water.

That's why his book will never be published (for sale) in England.

It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.

"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]

[ferryman]

It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.

"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]

Considered by whom?

Yes, in England (the recent defence of honest comment withstanding) the burden of proof is on a person accused of libel to establish the truth of what they say, and please God, it always will be.

Otherwise, people will find themselves in the absurd position the McCanns are in of having to prove the untruth of very serious allegations made against them.

And never mind that the McCanns have established (the untruth of the allegations against them, in spades) this (latest) ruling still says Amaral is not guilty of libel.

Why?

[Mr Gray]

It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.

"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]

amarals book would be libellous in most US states......I would much rather live in a country where ex policemen cannot accuse me of a crime on national tv and completely trash my reputation...when he has based his conclusions on evidence that is totally flawed

[Alice Purjorick]

amarals book would be libellous in most US states......I would much rather live in a country where ex policemen cannot accuse me of a crime on national tv and completely trash my reputation...when he has based his conclusions on evidence that is totally flawed

Explain how for example it will be libelous in Montana and Rhode Island

[Mr Gray]

Explain how for example it will be libelous in Montana and Rhode Island

most US states adopt the principle of libel per se......Ive explained it you before

[Alice Purjorick]

most US states adopt the principle of libel per se......Ive explained it you before

Don't duck the question.
Explain in Montana law and Rhode Island law.

[ShiningInLuz]

Considered by whom?

Yes, in England (the recent defence of honest comment withstanding) the burden of proof is on a person accused of libel to establish the truth of what they say, and please God, it always will be.

Otherwise, people will find themselves in the absurd position the McCanns are in of having to prove the untruth of very serious allegations made against them.

And never mind that the McCanns have established (the untruth of the allegations against them, in spades) this (latest) ruling still says Amaral is not guilty of libel.

Why?

The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.

The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.

Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory.  Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.

[ferryman]

The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.

The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.

Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory.  Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.

Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel. 

Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.

[slartibartfast]

Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel. 

Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.

No it doesn't.

[ShiningInLuz]

Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel. 

Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.

It was freedom of speech (Amaral) v right to a good name/privacy (McCanns). And as I'm sure you are aware, the finding was that the McCanns endless publicity surrounding the case meant that Amaral had the right to freedom of speech.

I have yet to see anything in any judgement that assesses either the McCann theorem or the Amaral theorem.  The civil action was not about testing either.

The Portuguese made clear the McCanns could not be prosecuted for negligence.

They concluded that in the absence of a reconstitution, there was no way to progress the case, and that it should be archived without charging anyone.  That is nothing like 'no basis'.  It is insufficient evidence to work out what happened.

The McCanns have not been 'tried' and 'found innocent'.

[G-Unit]

It might help to examine the first judgement. The judge said that Amaral said nothing that hadn't been said before.

Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.

One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.

So far, freedom of speech wins. But there are limits on it;

The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.

Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.

So the judge is saying that Amaral damaged the McCanns not by what he said in the book, the interview and the documentary, but by failing to observe the limitations imposed upon his freedom to speak by his former profession, by which he was still bound in retirement.


Is it, therefore, correct to say he libeled the McCanns in his book? No judge has ever actually said that he did, as far as I can understand it.


 

[Mr Gray]

Don't duck the question.
Explain in Montana law and Rhode Island law.

nein herr fuhrer

[Alice Purjorick]

It might help to examine the first judgement. The judge said that Amaral said nothing that hadn't been said before.

Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.

One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.

So far, freedom of speech wins. But there are limits on it;

The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.

Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.

So the judge is saying that Amaral damaged the McCanns not by what he said in the book, the interview and the documentary, but by failing to observe the limitations imposed upon his freedom to speak by his former profession, by which he was still bound in retirement.


Is it, therefore, correct to say he libeled the McCanns in his book? No judge has ever actually said that he did, as far as I can understand it.

A reasonable summation.

[Mr Gray]

It was freedom of speech (Amaral) v right to a good name/privacy (McCanns). And as I'm sure you are aware, the finding was that the McCanns endless publicity surrounding the case meant that Amaral had the right to freedom of speech.

I have yet to see anything in any judgement that assesses either the McCann theorem or the Amaral theorem.  The civil action was not about testing either.

The Portuguese made clear the McCanns could not be prosecuted for negligence.

They concluded that in the absence of a reconstitution, there was no way to progress the case, and that it should be archived without charging anyone.  That is nothing like 'no basis'.  It is insufficient evidence to work out what happened.

The McCanns have not been 'tried' and 'found innocent'.

no one is found innocent at trial