The Supreme Court in Portugal will shortly decide the McCann v Amaral damages case.

[Alice Purjorick]

Portuguese law is not the same as English law, that's the problem. If it was, then the McCanns would have been successful in their claim a long time ago, irrespective of any Appeal Court.

1. You don't say!

[G-Unit]

Is right, the (recent) innovation of the defence of 'honest comment' (to respondents in a libel suit) notwithstanding.

Should every other country in the world adopt the English common law system? I assume that's what you think is the best legal system in the world?

Most European countries have a civil law system, similar to that of Portugal.

That makes the English legal system out of step with the rest of Europe in my opinion.

English defamation law has been criticised by the ECHR, particularly for the size of the awards made. It has also attracted 'libel tourists' looking for large payouts.

[ferryman]

Should every other country in the world adopt the English common law system? I assume that's what you think is the best legal system in the world?

Most European countries have a civil law system, similar to that of Portugal.

That makes the English legal system out of step with the rest of Europe in my opinion.

English defamation law has been criticised by the ECHR, particularly for the size of the awards made. It has also attracted 'libel tourists' looking for large payouts.

Yes, I don't say that English libel law is perfect, far from it!

But I do think that its basic precept that what is said, written or (in other ways communicated) must, in essence (not necessarily in every fine detail) be truthful and capable of being demonstrably shown to be so (if the statements in dispute lower reputation) is sound.

That simply doesn't seem to apply in Portuguese libel law.

[stephen25000]

Yes, I don't say that English libel law is perfect, far from it!

But I do think that its basic precept that what is said, written or (in other ways communicated) must, in essence (not necessarily in every fine detail) be truthful and capable of being demonstrably shown to be so (if the statements in dispute lower reputation) is sound.

That simply doesn't seem to apply in Portuguese libel law.

i.e. The Portuguese Court system doesn't bow down and believe everything the Mccanns  have said.

[ferryman]

i.e. The Portuguese Court system doesn't bow down and believe everything the Mccanns  have said.

They just believe everything Amaral has said, even though the majority of it is contradicted by what's written in the files.

[stephen25000]

They just believe everything Amaral has said, even though the majority of it is contradicted by what's written in the files.

Why should the Mccanns version of events be believed  ?

[ferryman]

i.e. The Portuguese Court system doesn't bow down and believe everything the Mccanns  have said.

Let's see.

The second (joint Anglo-Portuguese investigation) holds out hope (still) of finding Madeleine alive!

Amaral claims in his book that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents hid their (dead) daughter's body and launched a (fraudulent) fund in their (dead) daughter's name.

And Amaral is not guilty of libel?

How does that work?

[G-Unit]

Let's see.

The second (joint Anglo-Portuguese investigation) holds out hope (still) of finding Madeleine alive!

Amaral claims in his book that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents hid their (dead) daughter's body and launched a (fraudulent) fund in their (dead) daughter's name.

And Amaral is not guilty of libel?

How does that work?

Facts;

There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.

[ferryman]

Facts;

There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.

You mean, Scotland Yard are investigating this thing alone?

What do you base that on?

And you appear to have the same comprehension difficulties as Stephen over the difference between kill  and murder.

I guess, even if Scotland Yard find Madeleine alive, Amaral will take the libel cheque without blushing. 

[stephen25000]

Facts;

There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.

You mean, Scotland Yard are investigating this thing alone?

What do you base that on?

And you appear to have the same comprehension difficulties as Stephen over the difference between kill and murder.

I guess, even if Scotland Yard find Madeleine alive, Amaral will take the libel cheque without blushing.

Haven't you yet reached the understanding that case will be shelved with no evidence of anything worth a grain of salt.

[Alice Purjorick]

Let's see.

The second (joint Anglo-Portuguese investigation) holds out hope (still) of finding Madeleine alive!

Amaral claims in his book that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents hid their (dead) daughter's body and launched a (fraudulent) fund in their (dead) daughter's name

And Amaral is not guilty of libel?

How does that work?

So far the court says he isn't.
I reckon the Portuguese Courts draw a significant amount more water than you do in this case.

[G-Unit]

Facts;

There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.

You mean, Scotland Yard are investigating this thing alone?

What do you base that on?

And you appear to have the same comprehension difficulties as Stephen over the difference between kill  and murder.

I guess, even if Scotland Yard find Madeleine alive, Amaral will take the libel cheque without blushing.

There is a difference between two separate investigations and a joint investigation.

To answer your point about kill and murder I refer you to what the first judge said in the damages trial;

it is not unreasonable that the plaintiffs would feel badly about being considered responsible for hiding the body and staging an abduction - not, the Judge stresses, about being responsible for their daughter's death, as is commonly, and mistakenly, believed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So the judge said they had been accused of neither

Any money Amaral receives if he is cleared will be his own money being returned to him, no-one else's.

[G-Unit]

He said he and his team reached the conclusion that the child died. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident.

[John]

Could we stick to the facts please and provide quotes where necessary.  Staying on topic would be helpful!

Calpol: The reference previously posted but since removed which was attributed to Amaral was simply to show that he did not make an allegation but rather asked a pertinent question.

[Robittybob1]

Haven't you yet reached the understanding that case will be shelved with no evidence of anything worth a grain of salt.

There is slight a chance it will be solved before then.