UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2014, 09:48:39 PM
-
The supreme court hasn't ruled on libel...there wouldn't be a libel trial if they had
-
The supreme court hasn't ruled on libel...there wouldn't be a libel trial if they had
You confuse the alleged book libel which was quashed with the current proceedings which are about compensation.
-
You confuse the alleged book libel which was quashed with the current proceedings which are about compensation.
I confuse nothing...libel has not been decided...you will find out the truth shortly
-
so are you saying its not a libel trial as well
-
so are you saying its not a libel trial as well
You have been saying for sometime libel has already been established in this case. 8)-)))
-
Very definitely a libel trial which for some reason Dr Amaral was anxious should be heard in camera.
** SNIP **
The parents of Madeleine McCann were left devastated by a book written by a former Portuguese detective that accused them of covering up her death, a court in Lisbon heard on Thursday.
Madeleine's mother, Kate, flew to Portugal for the opening day of a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from a holiday resort in Praia da Luz in May 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday.
Speaking at the end of the first day of proceedings, she said: "I am here today for Madeleine and strongly hope for justice. I am here to stop the damage that has been caused and is still being caused, directly and in directly, to the search for our daughter. And to stop the suffering being caused to our family by the theories in Goncalo Amaral's book and documentary."
The McCanns are suing Amaral for €1.2m in damages, saying the book was defamatory and helped poison public opinion against the couple.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens
-
Very definitely a libel trial which for some reason Dr Amaral was anxious should be heard in camera.
** SNIP **
The parents of Madeleine McCann were left devastated by a book written by a former Portuguese detective that accused them of covering up her death, a court in Lisbon heard on Thursday.
Madeleine's mother, Kate, flew to Portugal for the opening day of a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from a holiday resort in Praia da Luz in May 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday.
Speaking at the end of the first day of proceedings, she said: "I am here today for Madeleine and strongly hope for justice. I am here to stop the damage that has been caused and is still being caused, directly and in directly, to the search for our daughter. And to stop the suffering being caused to our family by the theories in Goncalo Amaral's book and documentary."
The McCanns are suing Amaral for €1.2m in damages, saying the book was defamatory and helped poison public opinion against the couple.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens
If the libel trial had been held in camera there would have been no news reports and no tabloid articles detailing Amaral's claims against the McCanns. Don't you think that is what the McCanns should have been appealing for too to protect their twins from hearing of the proceedings in the playground ?
-
Sorry, a bit distracted by the football. The attempt to ban Amaral's book initially was successful but as we all know the Supreme Court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court therefore determined that the book was not libellous. The current legal action claims that the book caused damage to the plaintiff's reputations and to the search. It is also a libel case but based on a different strategy, it also seeks damages.
-
Sorry, a bit distracted by the football. The attempt to ban Amaral's book initially was successful but as we all know the Supreme Court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court therefore determined that the book was not libellous. The current legal action claims that the book caused damage to the plaintiff's reputations and to the search. It is also a libel case but based on a different strategy, it also seeks damages.
How can it be a libel case if the book has been deemed "not libellous"?
-
How can it be a libel case if the book has been deemed "not libellous"?
I suppose one can bring as many libel cases as one wants as long as the money is there to do so?
-
If the libel trial had been held in camera there would have been no news reports and no tabloid articles detailing Amaral's claims against the McCanns. Don't you think that is what the McCanns should have been appealing for too to protect their twins from hearing of the proceedings in the playground ?
Your concern for the twins is laudable.
What a great pity there are so many who do not share your sentiments. Protecting the McCann twins from the abuse they will be exposed to on the internet and social media concerning their parents and Madeleine will be impossible.
-
Your concern for the twins is laudable.
What a great pity there are so many who do not share your sentiments. Protecting the McCann twins from the abuse they will be exposed to on the internet and social media concerning their parents and Madeleine will be impossible.
But you will agree that by supporting Amaral in his bid to have the case heard in camera the McCanns would, even in a small way, be helping to protect their children from the publicity the libel trial has ultimately generated ?
-
Justice should be transparent and should be seen to be done. There will be no obfuscation of any of the court proceedings.
There is absolutely no way the Drs McCann can protect their children from the deranged inhabitants of the world wide web and their vile comments.
The publicity generated by the libel trial is small beer in comparison to the organised campaigns directed at them their parents, their extended family and their friends.
I believe the McCanns obtained one of their injunctions against Amaral's book without Amaral being informed so it seems the McCanns don't exactly share your principals with regard to justice.
While I agree the McCanns can't protect their children from everything, they can at least do their utmost to negate the harm wherever possible.
-
I believe the McCanns obtained one of their injunctions against Amaral's book without Amaral being informed so it seems the McCanns don't exactly share your principals with regard to justice.
While I agree the McCanns can't protect their children from everything, they can at least do their utmost to negate the harm wherever possible.
If the Drs' McCann lawyers got an injunction through the Portuguese courts without Dr Amaral's lawyers knowing anything about it ... Dr Amaral's lawyers must have been negligent in the extreme.
Unless you can provide a cite to what you state as a belief ... I think your statement is so improbable as to be beyond belief.
-
If the Drs' McCann lawyers got an injunction through the Portuguese courts without Dr Amaral's lawyers knowing anything about it ... Dr Amaral's lawyers must have been negligent in the extreme.
Unless you can provide a cite to what you state as a belief ... I think your statement is so improbable as to be beyond belief.
Anyone who has followed this case for any length of time will have knowledge of this.
-
Anyone who has followed this case for any length of time will have knowledge of this.
I have been following the case since last September. This is one internet myth I have missed out on.
Quite obviously you have no provenance for your statement so until you can provide one perhaps you should withdraw it.
-
The only way for the McCann children to be protected from abuse is for those who orchestrate it to desist and for as much of it as possible to be taken down. Their parents can't do that ... only those guilty of the abuse can.
I am talking specifically about media reports of the libel trial which the McCanns, for reasons known only to themselves, didn't think it was worth protecting the twins from by holding proceedings in camera.
-
I have been following the case since last September. This is one internet myth I have missed out on.
Quite obviously you have no provenance for your statement so until you can provide one perhaps you should withdraw it.
It's no myth Brietta but I'm sorry I'm not spending hours looking for a cite for you to trash because it's Portuguese, from a newspaper, from Amaral or any other excuse you'll find to trash the veracity of the evidence.
As I said anyone who has followed the case for any length of time will know my claim is true. However those who haven't can always find the evidence for themselves.
-
It's no myth Brietta but I'm sorry I'm not spending hours looking for a cite for you to trash because it's Portuguese, from a newspaper, from Amaral or any other excuse you'll find to trash the veracity of the evidence.
As I said anyone who has followed the case for any length of time will know my claim is true. However those who haven't can always find the evidence for themselves.
Your credibility is zero. There is no excuse for making a statement without being able to corroborate it with an independent cite.
-
The decision by the
Supreme Court Appellate Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants. (In a Portuguese appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the then losing party is called an 'appellant' - thus the McCanns were the appellants in this action)
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.
-
You confuse the alleged book libel which was quashed with the current proceedings which are about compensation.
Compensation for what?
-
The decision by the Supreme Court Appellate Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.
Agreed.
-
The decision by the Supreme Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
[b]The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
[/b]
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.
My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place. And until libel is established - or not - as the case may be - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld. Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous.
The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.
-
My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place. And until libel is established - or not - as the case may be - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld. Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous.
The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.
Until the nature of the crime is established, how can you establish libel ?
-
My understanding is that the content of the book had not been proved to be lilbellous - because no libel trial had taken place. And until libel is established - or not - as the case may be - Amarals Rights to Freedom of Expression had to be upheld. Since then the McCanns have sought to establish to the court that his book is libellous.
The 'not proved' comment has nothing to do with the fact that Madeleine was/is still missing IMO.
This is how I understand it to be. Libel was not proven at the time. The current Trial is being held to establish whether or not the book is Libellous.
I have never had a problem with the book ban being lifted as Libel must first be proved.
-
Until the nature of the crime is established, how can you establish libel ?
very...very...very...easily
-
very...very...very...easily
You haven't learned from last night have you ?
-
You haven't learned from last night have you ?
cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...
-
cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...
the supreme court overuled the injunction to ban the book because libel had not been proved...thats what the libel trial is about to do...johns wrong on this one
-
cant answer the point on topic can you...
what are you referring to about last night...
You have a very short memory don't you ?
-
You have a very short memory don't you ?
no..as usual I have been shown to be right...produce posts if you claim otherwise
-
Until the nature of the crime is established, how can you establish libel ?
[/b]
You prove that the claims made in Amaral's book are untrue.
E.g..
Wednesday May 2nd
At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.
End quote
Is that a true statement which can be verified by the Files?
-
no..as usual I have been shown to be right...produce posts if you claim otherwise
and the Portuguese lawyer ???
-
[/b]
You prove that the claims made in Amaral's book are untrue.
E.g..
Wednesday May 2nd
At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.
End quote
Is that a true statement which can be verified by the Files?
Shall we wait for the result of the trial. 8**8:/: 8)-)))
-
its obvious libel has already been proved..we are just waiting for the official verdict...depends how long amaral can delay it
-
Shall we wait for the result of the trial. 8**8:/: 8)-)))
I would still appreciate your opinion on the statement made by Amaral in his book (below). Would you agree that it is not a true statement?
Quote
Wednesday May 2nd
At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.
End quote
-
The supreme court hasn't ruled on libel...there wouldn't be a libel trial if they had
The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.
-
The decision by the Supreme Court was in the final analysis very simple, ergo...
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Nothing has changed, the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance is still unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. Consequently, any claim that Amaral committed a libel must fail imo.
This is the decision by the Tribunal de Relação (the appeals court) not the Supreme Court and this decision was not open for appeal but the McCanns insisted anyway on appealing to the SC.
-
The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.
libel has not been decided...thats what the libel trial is about to decide.......you are wrong
-
libel has not been decided...thats what the libel trial is about to decide.......you are wrong
What was wrong with what I have just posted?
-
The Supreme Court did not rule on the libel question itself. AFAIK, they rejected the appeal made by the McCanns because it did not have a legal foundation for the SC to make a ruling on it. The SC rules on the form not the essence, meaning that they make rulings if there has been any legal mistakes in the verdict they are to appreciate. When the Tribunal de Relação made their ruling about the book ban and stated that the book was not libellous, there was no more possibility of appealing, in accordance with Portuguese law, but the McCanns and their lawyer insisted on appealing to the SC. Of course, it was rejected because it was not within their remit. I hope that I clear here.
supreme court did not rule on libel...where is teh ruling on libel by the Tribunal de Relaco
-
supreme court did not rule on libel...where is teh ruling on libel by the Tribunal de Relaco
That's what I just said, that the SC did not rule on the libel aspect at all. All they did was reject the appeal saying that it was not within their remit. I suggest that you try googling and read the "acordão" of 19 October 2010 of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa.
-
That's what I just said, that the SC did not rule on the libel aspect at all. All they did was reject the appeal saying that it was not within their remit. I suggest that you try googling and read the "acordão" of 19 October 2010 of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa.
So the supreme court has not ruled on libel as Luz and John have claimed..thank you for proving me right..the libel trial resumes on the 8th
-
Your credibility is zero. There is no excuse for making a statement without being able to corroborate it with an independent cite.
Here you are Brietta and remember no sniping at the source just because you don't like the message !
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/temporary-injunction-granted-on.html#uds-search-results
Now how about posting those links to Amaral's alleged phone call to Correaia's clients ?
-
So the supreme court has not ruled on libel as Luz and John have claimed..thank you for proving me right..the libel trial resumes on the 8th
The Tribunal de Relação did rule on the libel and book ban and overturned the injunction and stated that no libel or damages were committed against the McCanns. And their decision was not open to an appeal. So, you have not been proven right.
-
The Tribunal de Relação did rule on the libel and book ban and overturned the injunction and stated that no libel or damages were committed against the McCanns. And their decision was not open to an appeal. So, you have not been proven right.
According to the translation on Joanne Morais website the Tribunal did NOT rule on libel...if you cannot produce the ruling here you should stop making the claims
-
Until the nature of the crime is established, how can you establish libel ?
I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am but this case appears to rely firmly on the assumption that Dr Amaral is wrong in what he claims in his book. In the book appeal the injunction against Amaral was overturned because the Court of Appeal held that the case was not proven against him. Surely this ongoing action falls at the same hurdle?
Ruling (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html)
Court of Appeal explained (http://www.translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.trl.mj.pt/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTribunal%2Bde%2BRela%25C3%25A7%25C3%25A3o%2Bde%2Blisboa%26client%3Dms-opera-mobile%26channel%3Dnew)
-
I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am but this case appears to rely firmly on the assumption that Dr Amaral is wrong in what he claims in his book. In the book appeal the injunction against Amaral was overturned because the Supreme Court held that the case was not proven against him. Surely this ongoing action falls at the same hurdle?
Ruling (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html)
the book was returned for sale because the facts had not been proven,,,the ongoing trial is proving these facts...the outcome will depend on whether the judge feels the facts have now been proved
-
The Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa (Court of Appeal) justices put much emphases on the archiving report quoting as follows:-
In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"
The justices then discuss at length the dog alerts stating, "The dogs' indications cannot be used as evidence in court, but in multiple cases they provided precious help in terms of collection of evidence for the Scotland Yard and the FBI, with positive results.
... In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities - the Public Ministry and the Judiciary Police - tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts still remain to be clarified.
Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that "(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.
We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)".
They thus put the blame squarely at the feet of the complainants.
-
Their determination of the appeal concludes with:-
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
If the Tribunal de Relação (Court of Appeal) can state that the book does not offend any of the applicants (McCanns) fundamental rights I cannot see any lesser Court challenging that decision.
-
.....and on the presumption the mccanns have told the truth ?
Your response has nothing to do with Amaral's 'defence' - i.e. that the claims he makes in his book can be verified by the files and are therefore not libellous. The following being just one example which disproves his claim.
Quote
Wednesday May 2nd
At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.
End quote
]
Anyone who thinks that is a truthful account and is in accordance with the files is deluding themselves IMO.
-
Sorry, I don't follow Benice, any claims in respect of what Madeleine said are impossible to prove surely?
-
Their determination of the appeal concludes with:-
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
If the Tribunal de Relação (Court of Appeal) can state that the book does not offend any of the applicants (McCanns) fundamental rights I cannot see any lesser Court challenging that decision.
the ruling does not mention libel....could you explain what the court means by fundamental rights...you cant
-
The supreme court hasn't ruled on libel...there wouldn't be a libel trial if they had
In view of the proven and demonstrable lies Amaral has told that lower the McCanns' reputation, the outcome of the libel trial should be a foregone conclusion, yes.
And Dave's post that I copy is correct, yes ...
-
the ruling does not mention libel....could you explain what the court means by fundamental rights...you cant
Fundamental rights includes the right not to be defamed.
-
In view of the proven and demonstrable lies Amaral has told that lower the McCanns' reputation, the outcome of the libel trial should be a foregone conclusion, yes.
What lies? The Appellate Court is very clear in that the content of the book reflects the official investigation at the time of the archive. The libel action does not relate to anything Amaral has said in the intervening period.
-
This case is something else. We all think we know what we are talking about, but it is all so convoluted that no one can prove anything because nothing ever comes to a conclusion.
There we all are teetering on the edge of being proved right, and something happens to set it all off again.
Seven long and weary years and here we are still all here.
Will The Libel Trial finally come to a conclusion this week? Watch this space.
But I can't help wondering what we would all be doing without it.
-
This case is something else. We all think we know what we are talking about, but it is all so convoluted that no one can prove anything because nothing ever comes to a conclusion.
There we all are teetering on the edge of being proved right, and something happens to set it all off again.
Seven long and weary years and here we are still all here.
Will The Libel Trial finally come to a conclusion this week? Watch this space.
But I can't help wondering what we would all be doing without it.
Bravo Eleanor! 8@??)( @)(++(*
-
What lies?
Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on PJ's powers of arrest after Amaral had contradicted and corrected him on interpretation of the forensic results?
Not a chance.
Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation?
Outright fraudulent.
You just have to read Harrison's report to know that.
Eddie had no hesitation in picking out the Renault?
Erm .... no!
Even one of Amaral's own PJ officers knew that was nonsense and said so.
Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer?
Where is the evidence from the files?
Will that do for starters?
-
Fundamental rights includes the right not to be defamed.
at the time of this ruling there was no proof the mccanns had been defamed..tahts what this trial is about
-
What lies? The Appellate Court is very clear in that the content of the book reflects the at the time of the archive.
John
Seems you are collecting stuff for Amarals defense to use?
Ferryman tells you what lies ... and so Ferryman gives you the answer.
Then the defence team have all the time in the world to manipulate facts, and hone an answer.
Forewarned = Forearmed
This forum is a very clever tool for Amarals defence, IMO
Only my opinion, but I have been observing.
-
Their determination of the appeal concludes with:-
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
If the Tribunal de Relação (Court of Appeal) can state that the book does not offend any of the applicants (McCanns) fundamental rights I cannot see any lesser Court challenging that decision.
I was going to say that in that case there wasn't much point in having a trial.
However, the Prosecutor did not come to the same conclusion as Amaral did. Some of what he said / wrote is part of the (half-time) files, but numerous other details are not (e.g. hearsay) and his understanding of numerous aspects (e.g. the DNA issues) is totally flawed. To take just the DNA as an example, the average reader would not realise that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but might reasonably assume that a veteran police officer would.
In the film - to be fair to the producers - there is a short interview with Corte Real who agreed with Lowe. However, what he said wasn't easy to understand and I find it unlikely that the average viewer would have understood it and therefore glossed over it.
...All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation's archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Republic.
-
Fundamental rights includes the right not to be defamed.
do you still think this is not a libel trial...does anyone think this is not a libel trial
-
at the time of this ruling there was no proof the mccanns had been defamed..tahts what this trial is about
There still isn't any proof.
-
There still isn't any proof.
evidence is all the court requires to make its decision...do you still think this is not a libel trial
-
John
Seems you are collecting stuff for Amarals defense to use?
Ferryman tells you what lies ... and so Ferryman gives you the answer.
Then the defence team have all the time in the world to manipulate facts, and hone an answer.
Forewarned = Forearmed
This forum is a very clever tool for Amarals defence, IMO
Only my opinion, but I have been observing.
You're such a tease Sadie @)(++(*
If Amaral genuinely believed what he stated then that does not constitute a lie. Must do better.
-
evidence is all the court requires to make its decision...do you still think this is not a libel trial
In order to determine compensation if any, the Court will have to decide whether the complainants suffered the reputational damage they claim. In order to do that they have to prove Amaral went further than the Archive in his book but since the Appeal Court has already ruled on this I fail to see how any lesser Court can decide the contrary. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court award a nominal figure just to settle the issue.
-
Bravo Eleanor! 8@??)( @)(++(*
Ah. But, did I manage to stay On Topic?
-
In order to determine compensation if any, the Court will have to decide whether the complainants suffered the reputational damage they claim. In order to do that they have to prove Amaral went further than the Archive in his book but since the Appeal Court has already ruled on this I fail to see how any lesser Court can decide the contrary.
the appeal court hasn't ruled on this if they have you need to tell amaral....do you accept this is a libel trial...simple question...
-
the appeal court hasn't ruled on this if they have you need to tell amaral....do you accept this is a libel trial...simple question...
In part it is because some of the issues relate to an alleged defamation.
-
In order to determine compensation if any, the Court will have to decide whether the complainants suffered the reputational damage they claim. In order to do that they have to prove Amaral went further than the Archive in his book but since the Appeal Court has already ruled on this I fail to see how any lesser Court can decide the contrary. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court award a nominal figure just to settle the issue.
so you have said...it is a libel trial...then it isn't....then its another libel trial after the first one has been settled..your thinking sounds very muddled...the situation is very clear ..its a libel trail..it resumes on the 8th
-
In part it is because some of the issues relate to an alleged defamation.
so now you say it is..but you have said defamation has already been decided....defamation has not been decided
-
You're such a tease Sadie @)(++(*
If Amaral genuinely believed what he stated then that does not constitute a lie. Must do better.
Amaral tells lies.
You cannot believe anything such a man says.
Think about it John
-
Amaral tells lies.
You cannot believe anything such a man says.
Think about it John
If the McCanns have Stuart Prior's report (I'm sure they will have) they should easily be able to establish that Amaral lied about contradicting and correcting Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.
And why did Amaral go to the Portuguese Forensic laboratory rather than the FSS for an explanation of the FSS' work in establishing Madeleine's DNA from a sample of saliva Gerry provided them?
-
I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am but this case appears to rely firmly on the assumption that Dr Amaral is wrong in what he claims in his book. In the book appeal the injunction against Amaral was overturned because the Court of Appeal held that the case was not proven against him. Surely this ongoing action falls at the same hurdle?
Ruling (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html)
Court of Appeal explained (http://www.translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.trl.mj.pt/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTribunal%2Bde%2BRela%25C3%25A7%25C3%25A3o%2Bde%2Blisboa%26client%3Dms-opera-mobile%26channel%3Dnew)
I would concur with that.
-
If the McCanns have Stuart Prior's report (I'm sure they will have) they should easily be able to establish that Amaral lied about contradicting and correcting Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.
And why did Amaral go to the Portuguese Forensic laboratory rather than the FSS for an explanation of the FSS' work in establishing Madeleine's DNA from a sample of saliva Gerry provided them?
They might well have, but can that be presented in this (civil) case?
-
They might well have, but can that be presented in this (civil) case?
Yes.
Comparison of the case files with the content of Amaral's book
The ex-parte judgement overruling the injunction on the book (bizarrely) found that Amaral's book conformed with the case files so (difficult though that may be to believe) the judges must have made that judgment having read the case files.
If the case files were available for comparison in the dispute over the injunction, they will be available again for the dispute over the libel trial.
-
Yes.
Comparison of the case files with the content of Amaral's book
The ex-parte judgement overruling the injunction on the book (bizarrely) found that Amaral's book conformed with the case files so (difficult though that may be to believe) the judges must have made that judgment having read the case files.
If the case files were available for comparison in the dispute over the injunction, they will be available again for the dispute over the libel trial.
Possibly, but would confidential UK police reports be allowed? Perhaps, as Amaral's lawyer was allowed to quote from Rainbow's report...
-
do you still think this is not a libel trial...does anyone think this is not a libel trial
I don't think it's a trial of libel in the UK sense. In the Murat appeal, the judge acknowledged that many of the allegations couldn't be proven one way or the other.
Some aspects may be proven to be false or misleading, and others will be found to be contained in the files. Whether or not something contained in the files is actually true or not (e.g. a witness statement is a matter of fact, but whether what the witness actually said was verified, correctly translated and noted is a different issue). Reading up, I noticed Ferryman pointed out a number of other points, as well.
IMO, the judge will have to decide which allegations can be determined as factual, false /misleading or "dunno".
The judge will no doubt take into account his right to his "personal and professional honour" as well as the Amaral & co thinking at the time and whatever seems to be accurate according to the files. I would certainly hope that the judge will also take into account whether Amaral & co were actually sufficiently trained, experienced and competent to justify those allegations, and what the average reader / viewer would have retained as a conclusion, based on the assumption that the team were, in fact, experienced professionals in this type of investigation.
Then there is the whole issue of how to prove direct damage caused by the book / film, etc, and whether indirect damage can be taken into account or not.
How much credence would the average reader give to the author as the former lead on the investigation, as opposed to the same allegations made by some anonymous person who wasn't involved? If the credence is higher, how did that affect the reader's / viewer's perception? If that perception was that Madeleine was definitely dead and the parents were involved, with no credible evidence to back it up, would those same people remain vigilant for a potentially living little girl? How depressing would that be for the parents who had counted on a competent investigation? What effect could that have had on the twins? What security measures have had to be taken?
On the other side, some threats seem to have originated prior to his book, but PJ leaks under his watch will probably not be taken into account in this trial (cf the Murat appeal).
And then, if accepted... how to quantify it.
The bottom line for me, at the moment, in terms of what I can decipher of PT law is... dunno.
-
[ quote removed ]
Brietta also uses Miss Morais as her source on another thread so I'm sure she won't mind if I do too.
-
I am talking specifically about media reports of the libel trial which the McCanns, for reasons known only to themselves, didn't think it was worth protecting the twins from by holding proceedings in camera.
What is there to object to about them learning about court proceedings?
-
Amaral alleges that Madeleine is definitely dead.
He alleges that on the basis of the reactions of the dogs
[ unestablished claim removed ]
An allegation of that nature, coming from the former (first) co-ordinator of the investigation will damage the search for Madeleine, because people will be encouraged to think Madeleine is dead and will no longer look out for her.
Amaral has both damaged the search for Madeleine and lowered the reputations of the McCanns with falsehoods at least of which are manifestly lies ...
-
Amaral alleges that Madeleine is definitely dead.
He alleges that on the basis of the reactions of the dogs
[ unestablished claim removed ]
An allegation of that nature, coming from the former (first) co-ordinator of the investigation will damage the search for Madeleine, because people will be encouraged to think Madeleine is dead and will no longer look out for her.
Amaral has both damaged the search for Madeleine and lowered the reputations of the McCanns with falsehoods at least of which are manifestly lies ...
I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.
He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?
-
I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.
He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?
Clearly the average reader is supposed (by Amaral's lights) to interpret it as collusion by the FSS to cover up the misdeeds of the nefarious McCanns.
And no doubt some have.
The other complication is if the present enquiry establishes that the worst has happened to Madeleine.
Then Amaral could (doubtless would!) claim that his book didn't damage the search for Madeleine because Madeleine was dead.
Then, I would expect the McCanns to receive a (nominal) sum for established libel, and Amaral will waltz off into the sunset with an obscenely large proportion of his ill-gotten-gains from the proceeds of a flea-bitten book
-
I agree that he made a big fuss of the dogs' alerts, and the bottom line was that there was no forensic evidence to validate what the dogs actually alerted to.
He didn't understand the forensics, but made it seem as if there were shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the FSS to cover up for the McCanns. How would an average reader interpret that?
Of course, he understood the forensics. The police in Portugal, both local and British, were informed regularly on the results. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter at all what Gonçalo Amaral thought or not as it was not his decision to make them arguidos.
-
Of course, he understood the forensics. The police in Portugal, both local and British, were informed regularly on the results. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter at all what Gonçalo Amaral thought or not as it was not his decision to make them arguidos.
He did understand the forensics? There's a thread on that somewhere here...
ETA: whose decision was it to make them arguidos? I already posted a link on this, if I can find it again.
Where is it stated that the PJ don't have this authority?
-
Of course, he [Amaral] understood the forensics.
Better than Prior, apparently.
Amaral even understood what the rest of us dunderheads misunderstood as an explanatory email from John Lowe to Stuart Prior to be, actually, a preliminary report ...
-
He did understand the forensics? There's a thread on that somewhere here...
ETA: whose decision was it to make them arguidos? I already posted a link on this, if I can find it again.
Where is it stated that the PJ don't have this authority?
After all this time, so many people still refuse to understand how a criminal investigation is carried out in Portugal. It is the judge, that is the Ministério Público, who decides whether to make someone an arguido or not. It is not just one policeman who makes this decision. Maybe one day you will finally understand this concept.
-
Sorry, I don't follow Benice, any claims in respect of what Madeleine said are impossible to prove surely?
I think you've missed the point John. In his book Amaral changed the date from the 3rd May to the 2nd for when Madeleine spoke to her parents and also changed what they reported she had said to them about herself and Sean.
If Amaral decided to change or leave out part of the 'evidence' given by her parents so that he could convince his readers to believe what he wanted them to believe - then he should have made it clear in his book that he had altered their evidence - and NOT claim that what he wrote in his book was factually correct and was in the files - as that is patently untrue.
-
After all this time, so many people still refuse to understand how a criminal investigation is carried out in Portugal. It is the judge, that is the Ministério Público, who decides whether to make someone an arguido or not. It is not just one policeman who makes this decision. Maybe one day you will finally understand this concept.
I believe that I already posted a few days ago that MP did not need to be consulted over making someone an arguido, according to what I'd found. As threads and posts disappear, do you have a CPP article to cite the contrary?
-
I think you've missed the point John. In his book Amaral changed the date from the 3rd May to the 2nd for when Madeleine spoke to her parents and also changed what they reported she had said to them about herself and Sean.
If Amaral decided to change or leave out part of the 'evidence' given by her parents so that he could convince his readers to believe what he wanted them to believe - then he should have made it clear in his book that he had altered their evidence - and NOT claim that what he wrote in his book was factually correct and was in the files - as that is patently untrue.
Amaral also claimed in his book that the Gaspars gave a joint statement, which is extraordinary, since standard procedure of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual statements.
Amaral also totally misrepresented Mrs G's statement ...
-
Amaral also claimed in his book that the Gaspars gave a joint statement, which is extraordinary, since standard procedure of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual statements.
Amaral also totally misrepresented Mrs G's statement ...
Interestingly, he seems to have ignored her husband's statement. And glossed over the Smith family members who didn't agree with Martin's doubt.
-
I believe that I already posted a few days ago that MP did not need to be consulted over making someone an arguido, according to what I'd found. As threads and posts disappear, do you have a CPP article to cite the contrary?
Amaral even says something in his book about that, although I would have to hunt down the specific passage ...
-
I believe that I already posted a few days ago that MP did not need to be consulted over making someone an arguido, according to what I'd found. As threads and posts disappear, do you have a CPP article to cite the contrary?
You may have posted that a few days ago but that does not make it true.
-
You may have posted that a few days ago but that does not make it true.
Not the point I was looking for but... what is your understanding of this aspect?
Article 58. Point 3 in particular: unless I've misunderstood, either the MP or the PJ can establish arguido status. If the PJ does so, this has to be communicated within 10 days to the judicial authorities for validation.
13
2 — A constituição de arguido opera-se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar-se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.o que por essa razão passam a caber-lhe.
3 — A constituição de arguido feita por órgão de polícia criminal é comunicada à autoridade judiciária no prazo de 10 dias e por esta apreciada, em ordem à sua validação, no prazo de 10 dias.
This is from the CPP 2007. Some changes have been made to the code since then.
-
Not the point I was looking for but... what is your understanding of this aspect?
Article 58. Point 3 in particular: unless I've misunderstood, either the MP or the PJ can establish arguido status. If the PJ does so, this has to be communicated within 10 days to the judicial authorities for validation.
13
2 — A constituição de arguido opera-se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar-se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.o que por essa razão passam a caber-lhe.
3 — A constituição de arguido feita por órgão de polícia criminal é comunicada à autoridade judiciária no prazo de 10 dias e por esta apreciada, em ordem à sua validação, no prazo de 10 dias.
This is from the CPP 2007. Some changes have been made to the code since then.
As you can see, if it is the police who make someone an "arguido", this decision must be given to the judicial authority, within 10 days, who then decide to validate it or not. Therefore, the final decision is made by the judge.
-
Interestingly, he seems to have ignored her husband's statement. And glossed over the Smith family members who didn't agree with Martin's doubt.
[/b]
That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.
Quote from his book
In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote
IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did. In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.
Lying by omission IMO. i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.
-
As you can see, if it is the police who make someone an "arguido", this decision must be given to the judicial authority, within 10 days, who then decide to validate it or not. Therefore, the final decision is made by the judge.
That's why I quoted both points. Someone on here was saying that the PJ couldn't make someone arguido. They can, but subject to validation within 10 days.
-
[/b]
That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.
Quote from his book
In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote
IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did. In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.
Lying by omission IMO. i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.
Well... I can see how he got out of this in his book as he must have been referring to the initial email sent on during his tenure concerning Martin Smith's doubt. The 60-80% issue came later and so he could claim that this wasn't known at the time he left.
However, he has stated that Martin Smith was 80% sure (forgetting the 60-80% based on the way in which Gerry was simply carrying the child) in various interviews.
So... if he acknowledges that, then he must have consulted the files after his departure. If he has, then how come he hasn't corrected all sorts of details which, post-departure, were found to be unfounded?
-
I think you've missed the point John. In his book Amaral changed the date from the 3rd May to the 2nd for when Madeleine spoke to her parents and also changed what they reported she had said to them about herself and Sean.
If Amaral decided to change or leave out part of the 'evidence' given by her parents so that he could convince his readers to believe what he wanted them to believe - then he should have made it clear in his book that he had altered their evidence - and NOT claim that what he wrote in his book was factually correct and was in the files - as that is patently untrue.
Yes, I agree, Benice. Why did he change the date? A genuine or a convenient mistake?
-
Clearly the average reader is supposed (by Amaral's lights) to interpret it as collusion by the FSS to cover up the misdeeds of the nefarious McCanns.
And no doubt some have.
The other complication is if the present enquiry establishes that the worst has happened to Madeleine.
Then Amaral could (doubtless would!) claim that his book didn't damage the search for Madeleine because Madeleine was dead.
Then, I would expect the McCanns to receive a (nominal) sum for established libel, and Amaral will waltz off into the sunset with an obscenely large proportion of his ill-gotten-gains from the proceeds of a flea-bitten book
Even if the McCanns win, quantifiably proven damages are likely to be peanuts (although court costs might be fairly hefty).
However, even a little body were found tomorrow, I don't see how that would necessarily affect the alleged damage.
a) Even if it could be proven that she'd died that evening, if her remains had been anywhere where someone could have stumbled upon them (or something significant), but didn't report it because it didn't coincide with his version, then that surely constitutes further suffering for a family in limbo.
b) She might have been alive for some time (cf the Dutroux kids), in which case his continued assertions that she'd died that night would be... beyond words.
She might still be alive, but the people who find him to be a hero and believe the tabloid TV matinée shows with himself and /or his pals, and then gossip with others won't pay attention to a child who is now 10 years old who might be her.
-
What is there to object to about them learning about court proceedings?
If you can't see what's wrong with exposing two nine year olds to what has been said in that courtroom then I can't possibly explain it to you.
-
[/b]
That's putting it mildly IMO Carana - the following is a deeply misleading and erroneous account of the Smith family's reaction to seeing Gerry leaving the plane carrying Sean imo.
Quote from his book
In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.
End quote
IMO That description bears no resemblance to the account given by Mr. Smith or even hints that no-one else in his family except his wife thought the same as he did. In fact IMO readers are led to believe that this is what the whole Smith family believed.
Lying by omission IMO. i.e. leaving out vital facts in order to manipulate the reader into believing what he wanted them to believe happened rather than what actually did happen.
I'd not picked that up before.
It's a shrewd observation and bang on right, save for one small detail.
I'd say it's lying by commission, not omission.
Mr Smith in his statement is very explicit that only his wife thought the same as him.
-
If you can't see what's wrong with exposing two none year olds to what has been said in that courtroom then I can't possibly explain it to you.
If the twins read or hear about accounts of court proceedings in the defamation case, where both sides are defended in a court of justice, is that better or worse than trying to explain to your other children that the head cop who was supposed to be looking for their big sister had decided that she was dead and that mummy and daddy had hidden her body, with no credible evidence to support that?
Which has more educational value?
-
Even if the McCanns win, quantifiably proven damages are likely to be peanuts (although court costs might be fairly hefty).
However, even a little body were found tomorrow, I don't see how that would necessarily affect the alleged damage.
a) Even if it could be proven that she'd died that evening, if her remains had been anywhere where someone could have stumbled upon them (or something significant), but didn't report it because it didn't coincide with his version, then that surely constitutes further suffering for a family in limbo.
b) She might have been alive for some time (cf the Dutroux kids), in which case his continued assertions that she'd died that night would be... beyond words.
She might still be alive, but the people who find him to be a hero and believe the tabloid TV matinée shows with himself and /or his pals, and then gossip with others won't pay attention to a child who is now 10 years old who might be her.
Why is Amaral the one running away if he has, even an outside chance, of winning?
And given all that is demonstrably untrue, lowers reputation and fosters the belief that Madeleine is dead, why is not the case that Amaral has damaged the search for Madeleine proved?
Quantifiable damages?
The amount Amaral has made in propagating the message in his book and in interviews that Madeleine is dead.
-
getting back on topic...I have made my opinion very clear that based on the available evidence amaral is toast in the libel trial...others want to say that defamation has already been decided in amarals favour and damages will be minimal...so hopefully we will soon see whose mind and analytical skills are as sharp as a razor and whose are as dim as a Toc H lamp... I am really looking forward to it
-
If you were at all concerned about the two nine year olds you and your friends would not post your lies and bile on the internet. At least the twins will have some comfort that there are nice people like myself defending their parents
It's not my concern for the twins I'm worried about, it's their parents.
-
What has been said in the Courtroom doesn't compare to some of the disgusting and cruel things said on this forum. Nor to some of the unfounded accusations by Amaral
The twins should not have access to a forum like this. It would, however, be impossible to stop them watching the news or learning details from their friends at school.
-
“What are the 'revelations' in the book?” the judge asked Ricardo Paiva.
“There is nothing new compared with the inquiry”, the inspector replied.
“But it says the contrary on the back cover, it says that there are 'unique revelations'. What are those?”, the magistrate insisted.
“They may be unique to those who bought the book and didn't read the case files”, Ricardo Paiva suggested.
Ironically, the judge concluded “Then it's misleading advertising!”.
http://goncaloamaral.webs.com/inthenews.htm
IMO the witnesses for the defence who had neither read the book nor watched the video did nothing to help Dr Amaral's case.
Allegedly his new lawyer does not use modern communication methods ... hope he has an alarm clock at least. I'm sure he wouldn't want to cause any more delays to the trial by oversleeping for a few hours.
-
Any news on amarals new lawyer
-
This is a Portuguese article in the Diaro de Noticas..
by Rute Coelho
June 17, 2014
“I was caught by surprise. Gonçalo Amaral called me at 22h00 on Sunday warning me that he was going to dismiss my services in the McCann process. He didn’t say why”, lawyer Santos de Oliveira, who had prepared closing arguments to be presented on Monday, told DN yesterday. Due to Amaral’s decision, yesterday’s session was only used to schedule closing arguments for July.
“What happened was more than bizarre. My fees have not been paid in full yet. I have only received part of it”, Santos de Oliveira mentioned, refusing to comment if Gonçalo Amaral’s eventual financial difficulties lie behind the former Judiciary Police inspector’s decision to dismiss his defence.
In the defamation trial, the McCanns claim the payment of 1.2 million euro from Gonçalo Amaral, the author of Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira
For those who don't understand its a libel trial
-
Can we play nicely today, do you think? Deleting posts is a very boring occupation, and just wastes everyone's time.
-
In what way will the nine year old children be protected now and in the future from vile internet trolling consisting of innuendo and lies associated with Dr Amaral and his book?
Is it your assertion that had the trial been heard in camera this would cease?
IMO Amaral wanted the trial held in camera so that his supporters would not see the paucity of his case.
-
IMO Amaral wanted the trial held in camera so that his supporters would not see the paucity of his case.
Really ???
8((()*/ @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
IMO Amaral wanted the trial held in camera so that his supporters would not see the paucity of his case.
Yes, I agree. We have seen how the biggest attempts at spin from Amaral's fans have come from the events that were not held in public - the supposed raising if the WOC issue, for example.
-
While the McCanns claimed deep psychologal damage as a result of the book yet offered not one scintilla of proper medical evidence to support their claim.
Further it seemed that many of their witnesses believed certain facts 'simply because Kate or Gerry had told them so and of course the judge will not be blind to the fact that the McCanns on one hand claim the book exposed their children to terrible allegations about their parents yet when given the chance to protect those same children from further reporting of those allegations by having the case heard in camera refused to do so.
Just why is it so important to Amaral you, that the case be held in Camera?
Having it take place in open Court ensures that any lies, disinformation given are exposed to the scrutiny of interested and often [as is the case in this forum] very knowledgeable observers.
That is the case for both sides
When one party has already been found guilty of lying to the Courts, it seems particularly important to me, that the Open Court method is used.
Pease do not forget that Amaral has already been found guilty of Perjury. In other words lying to the Courts.
-
getting back on topic...I have made my opinion very clear that based on the available evidence amaral is toast in the libel trial...others want to say that defamation has already been decided in amarals favour and damages will be minimal...so hopefully we will soon see whose mind and analytical skills are as sharp as a razor and whose are as dim as a Toc H lamp... I am really looking forward to it
So is this one of Sadie's stuck records.
-
I don't think it's a trial of libel in the UK sense. In the Murat appeal, the judge acknowledged that many of the allegations couldn't be proven one way or the other.
Some aspects may be proven to be false or misleading, and others will be found to be contained in the files. Whether or not something contained in the files is actually true or not (e.g. a witness statement is a matter of fact, but whether what the witness actually said was verified, correctly translated and noted is a different issue). Reading up, I noticed Ferryman pointed out a number of other points, as well.
IMO, the judge will have to decide which allegations can be determined as factual, false /misleading or "dunno".
The judge will no doubt take into account his right to his "personal and professional honour" as well as the Amaral & co thinking at the time and whatever seems to be accurate according to the files. I would certainly hope that the judge will also take into account whether Amaral & co were actually sufficiently trained, experienced and competent to justify those allegations, and what the average reader / viewer would have retained as a conclusion, based on the assumption that the team were, in fact, experienced professionals in this type of investigation.
Then there is the whole issue of how to prove direct damage caused by the book / film, etc, and whether indirect damage can be taken into account or not.
How much credence would the average reader give to the author as the former lead on the investigation, as opposed to the same allegations made by some anonymous person who wasn't involved? If the credence is higher, how did that affect the reader's / viewer's perception? If that perception was that Madeleine was definitely dead and the parents were involved, with no credible evidence to back it up, would those same people remain vigilant for a potentially living little girl? How depressing would that be for the parents who had counted on a competent investigation? What effect could that have had on the twins? What security measures have had to be taken?
On the other side, some threats seem to have originated prior to his book, but PJ leaks under his watch will probably not be taken into account in this trial (cf the Murat appeal).
And then, if accepted... how to quantify it.
The bottom line for me, at the moment, in terms of what I can decipher of PT law is... dunno.
Good post Carana but you must realise that the judge in this trial will have to take on board the actions by the McCanns and their friends just as the court did in revoking the book ban. The McCanns want to place the blame at Amarals door but they must accept that they are also culpable in what went on imo.
-
Good post Carana but you must realise that the judge in this trial will have to take on board the actions by the McCanns and their friends just as the court did in revoking the book ban. The McCanns want to place the blame at Amarals door but they must accept that they are also culpable in what went on imo.
Not really. Two people in a foreign resort that they genuinely believed was safe. And they are only questioning the so often incorrect statements in his book and on television. IMO.
But I do respect your right to your opinion.
-
Indeed John!
There seems to be an astonishing amount placed on Mr Amarals guilt with regards to Little Maddie's misfortune/fate. The parents have absolved themselves of any responsibility, and the huge part they played in THEIR daughters demise.
Team McCANN really do believe they have the same influence and 'pull' in Portugal as they do with the UK press.
Team McCann and the 'slags mags' UKs MSM, made millions out of that little girls plight.
...And here they are shouting off again for more money!!
Uttlery disgusting in my view.
They have no shame, or self respect, or moral decency about them. Claiming money for a child who they have not seen for 7 years!
This is about reputation management nothing more-nothing less.
-
Indeed John!
There seems to be an astonishing amount placed on Mr Amarals guilt with regards to Little Maddie's misfortune/fate. The parents have absolved themselves of any responsibility, and the huge part they played in THEIR daughters demise.
Team McCANN really do believe they have the same influence and 'pull' in Portugal as they do with the UK press.
Team McCann and the 'slags mags' UKs MSM, made millions out of that little girls plight.
...And here they are shouting off again for more money!!
Uttlery disgusting in my view.
They have no shame, or self respect, or moral decency about them. Claiming money for a child who they have not seen for 7 years!
This is about reputation management nothing more-nothing less.
You seem to have "Miss"ed a lot of things "Miss" Taken Identity.
1) Their name has been destroyed by Amaral. Seems they have ben badly libelled in his book and Seems to me that they have been slandered too. If so they are entitled to any financial rewards that might come their way ... as any other person would be
2) They have to STOP the continuing lies and disinformation put out about them.
3) Until now any monies acrued, from such libel cases, which should be compensation for them, they have given to the Madeleine Search fund.
4) It seems likely if this pattern of giving continues that any monies that they do get awarded will go towards the future search for Madeleine, should SY stop searching for any reason, Lack of funds, Diplomatic reasons, Political pressure come to mind as possible reasons why this might happen some time in the future
-
Not really. Two people in a foreign resort that they genuinely believed was safe. And they are only questioning the so often incorrect statements in his book and on television. IMO.
But I do respect your right to your opinion.
It was a safe resort as long as parents took a few basic precautions such as not leaving toddlers on their own for hours on end.
The courts have already confirmed that Amaral had the right to publish his book regardless of minor discrepancies in it and I for one cant wait for the sequel.
-
It was a safe resort as long as parents took a few basic precautions such as not leaving toddlers on their own for hours on end.
The courts have already confirmed that Amaral had the right to publish his book regardless of minor discrepancies in it and I for one cant wait for the sequel.
Regardless of minor discrepancies? Don't make me laugh. Anyone could write any old rubbish if that was acceptable. Although that wouldn't surprise me in Portugal.
But I do agree about the sequel. Not that I think he will risk it.
-
quote"You seem to have "Miss"ed a lot of things "Miss" Taken Identity.
1) Their name has been destroyed by Amaral. Seems they have ben badly libelled in his book and Seems to me that they have been slandered too. If so they are entitled to any financial rewards that might come their way ... as any other person would be
2) They have to STOP the continuing lies and disinformation put out about them.
3) Until now any monies acrued, from such libel cases, which should be compensation for them, they have given to the Madeleine Search fund.
4) It seems likely if this pattern of giving continues that any monies that they do get awarded will go towards the future search for Madeleine, should SY stop searching for any reason, Lack of funds, Diplomatic reasons, Political pressure come to mind as possible reasons why this might happen some time in the future"unquote
Your sarcasm is duly noted- and deemed pathetic in it's entirety.
1. They destroyed their own reputation by their disgraceful behavior- drinking and eating whilst their children were alone! Badly libeled? so much pain that would have caused them-considering what their 3 year old toddler has probably endured, due to their action or lack of as it turns out. Blood money! that is what it is-money on the back of their daughters plight!
2.Lies and disinformation? would you be talking about people not believing them? They can't stop people not trusting them and it isn't illegal. even if it was- what mother would go to court for blood money because of what people 'think'.
3. ah the 'fund' piggy bank for the 'trips' to look for Maddie in 4 star hotels etc. It is a 'piggy bank' for the 'Family'
4. They can do what the Needams family do.. go it alone! I am sure Bens parents were also accused of things- they didn't go suing people! They searched for their son! Not paid lackies.
-
Amaral even says something in his book about that, although I would have to hunt down the specific passage ...
Amaral wrote in his book at page 84,
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit."
As already posted, this status must be validated within a period of 10 days.
-
Amaral wrote in his book at page 84,
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit."
As already posted, this status must be validated within a period of 10 days.
So someone validated this even though the law changed a couple of days after The McCanns were made arguidos?
-
Quote" "The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit."unquote
Just like the 4 PDL 'suspects' were made arguidos? at the request of SY.
-
Regardless of minor discrepancies? Don't make me laugh. Anyone could write any old rubbish if that was acceptable. Although that wouldn't surprise me in Portugal.
But I do agree about the sequel. Not that I think he will risk it.
He has promised many more revelations in the new book.
-
He has promised many more revelations in the new book.
That stand alone piece of evidence that never seems to materialise, mayhap.
The silly, old fool will get himself banged up if he isn't careful. Or sectioned, more like. MI5, Aces, Political Interference. Satellite Photos.
Or perhaps he wants another Libel Trial after this one is over.
-
What an embarrassment he must be to the Portuguese police who are together with SY trying to investigate the case.
Whilst they are digging sites, questioning people etc. He is shouting that they put Madeleine in a coffin which was ready to be cremated.
You can imagine him being carted off by the white coats shouting these things can't you.
-
Good post Carana but you must realise that the judge in this trial will have to take on board the actions by the McCanns and their friends just as the court did in revoking the book ban. The McCanns want to place the blame at Amarals door but they must accept that they are also culpable in what went on imo.
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
If you mean the fact that they weren't in the apartment when she disappeared and their active engagement with the media to highlight her profile as a missing child, then, yes, I expect that those aspects will have been submitted by the defence as potential damage limitation.
Just as I expect that negative coverage by PT tabloids, repeated by the UK tabloids and again repeated as confirmation of "...according to the UK press..." by the PT tabloids the next day preceded the book will also be submitted. The fact that many of the allegations in the press came from garbled PJ leaks in the first place won't count in the libel trial (from what I've gathered from the Murat appeal in which his lawyer had submitted a complaint along the same lines).
-
Just a few thoughts...
In PT civil law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, unless there is a legal presumption that reverses it.
- In the Murat appeal, the judges found that one existed as he was suing the press. It's not clear to me whether the publication of a book, a TV "documentary" and his various TV interviews count as "press" as most of that section of law seems to refer to newspapers. He has had numerous interviews published in newspapers (or other rags), and used to have a regular column in CdaM. What I'm not sure about is whether potentially libellous material in those interviews / articles are being considered within this trial or whether it will only be limited to the book and documentary.
- I'm also wondering about whether the legal presumption of innocence would apply in this case. It was mentioned in the Murat appeal, but not specifically concerning the applicable presumption in his case, although perhaps it didn't need to be.
The rights that he appears to be defending concern his right to freedom of expression to defend his honour and to contribute to the truth and therefore justice for Madeleine.
However, since the injunction trial, his "honour" has taken a bashing. Back then his suspended conviction over a different case hadn't been upheld at that point and he had political ambitions, which fizzled out.
His lack of understanding of several aspects of the case undermines his credibility as an experienced professional. To what extent the fact that he was speaking out as a "citizen" as opposed to a retired professional (with the inherent credibility factor) will be taken into account remains to be seen.
-
quote"You seem to have "Miss"ed a lot of things "Miss" Taken Identity.
1) Their name has been destroyed by Amaral. Seems they have ben badly libelled in his book and Seems to me that they have been slandered too. If so they are entitled to any financial rewards that might come their way ... as any other person would be
2) They have to STOP the continuing lies and disinformation put out about them.
3) Until now any monies acrued, from such libel cases, which should be compensation for them, they have given to the Madeleine Search fund.
4) It seems likely if this pattern of giving continues that any monies that they do get awarded will go towards the future search for Madeleine, should SY stop searching for any reason, Lack of funds, Diplomatic reasons, Political pressure come to mind as possible reasons why this might happen some time in the future"unquote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your sarcasm is duly noted- and deemed pathetic in it's entirety.
1. They destroyed their own reputation by their disgraceful behavior- drinking and eating whilst their children were alone! Badly libeled? so much pain that would have caused them-considering what their 3 year old toddler has probably endured, due to their action or lack of as it turns out. Blood money! that is what it is-money on the back of their daughters plight!
2.Lies and disinformation? would you be talking about people not believing them? They can't stop people not trusting them and it isn't illegal. even if it was- what mother would go to court for blood money because of what people 'think'.
3. ah the 'fund' piggy bank for the 'trips' to look for Maddie in 4 star hotels etc. It is a 'piggy bank' for the 'Family'
4. They can do what the Needams family do.. go it alone! I am sure Bens parents were also accused of things- they didn't go suing people! They searched for their son! Not paid lackies.
No sarcasm there.
You have an interesting perspective. Very interesting !
So peeps cannot eat in what they thought was a safe environment checking their children in a better way than most hotels did? And they cannot have a glass or two of wine with their meal?
They were not to expect that something tragic and as far as I am aware something that had never happened berfore, would happen to their little girl. The apartment patio area was externally illuminated and in view of the tapas group, who were only a little over 50 metres away. The apartment was, they believed, locked on the other side.
According to the wine waiter, who should know, their drinking was very moderate.
"Blood" money to try and raise money to look for their missing daughter. What an interesting mind you have.
And "piggy bank for trips" to stay in 4* hotels" to look for maddy. "A piggy bank for the family" I wonder what any ordinary reader will think of you saying that.
SY have searched for Ben and we all applaud that. The Mccanns did go it alone for about 4 years and if SY for any reason have to give up, they will go it alone again.
Imo, SY are looking foir more than just the perps in this .... but that's another story.
-
It was a safe resort as long as parents took a few basic precautions such as not leaving toddlers on their own for hours on end.
The courts have already confirmed that Amaral had the right to publish his book regardless of minor discrepancies in it and I for one cant wait for the sequel.
he courts have confirmed that amarlal has a right to publish the book now another court will decide if it is libellous
-
Just a few thoughts...
In PT civil law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, unless there is a legal presumption that reverses it.
- In the Murat appeal, the judges found that one existed as he was suing the press. It's not clear to me whether the publication of a book, a TV "documentary" and his various TV interviews count as "press" as most of that section of law seems to refer to newspapers. He has had numerous interviews published in newspapers (or other rags), and used to have a regular column in CdaM. What I'm not sure about is whether potentially libellous material in those interviews / articles are being considered within this trial or whether it will only be limited to the book and documentary.
- I'm also wondering about whether the legal presumption of innocence would apply in this case. It was mentioned in the Murat appeal, but not specifically concerning the applicable presumption in his case, although perhaps it didn't need to be.
The rights that he appears to be defending concern his right to freedom of expression to defend his honour and to contribute to the truth and therefore justice for Madeleine.
However, since the injunction trial, his "honour" has taken a bashing. Back then his suspended conviction over a different case hadn't been upheld at that point and he had political ambitions, which fizzled out.
His lack of understanding of several aspects of the case undermines his credibility as an experienced professional. To what extent the fact that he was speaking out as a "citizen" as opposed to a retired professional (with the inherent credibility factor) will be taken into account remains to be seen.
If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent
-
If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent
How many of the 'mccann' witnesses were in Portugal at the time of the events ?
-
Proceedings were held up in Lisbon when Amaral petitioned to have the hearings held in camera, but that was rejected by the judge.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens
As usual ... never let an opportunity go past without getting the boot into the Drs McCann ... the Judge apparently prefers justice to be seen to be delivered in an open court where there is no ambiguity because the proceedings are transparent.
Wonder what was so important that Dr Amaral preferred it to be discussed in private?
I'm more concerned with why the McCanns didn't support Amaral's request.
-
How many of the 'mccann' witnesses were in Portugal at the time of the events ?
Is this relevant?
-
Is this relevant?
Read davel's comment.
He brought up the matter of the mccann witnesses.
Now if any of the 'witlessness's' weren't in Portugal, what relevance do they have ?
-
Read davel's comment.
He brought up the matter of the mccann witnesses.
Now if any of the 'witlessness's' weren't in Portugal, what relevance do they have ?
They have watched The McCanns suffer for seven years. They didn't have to be there at the time of the event to do that.
Plain common sense, really.
-
They have watched The McCanns suffer for seven years. They didn't have to be there at the time of the event to do that.
Plain common sense, really.
However, more pertinently, they weren't there, were they ?
They did not witness the events.
So at the very best they were character witnesses.
and who is the author of the mccanns 'suffering' ?
-
IMO Amaral wanted the trial held in camera so that his supporters would not see the paucity of his case.
I disagree.
Santos' cited reason for the request was to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
That broadcast the weakness of Amaral's position in three-foot (or about a metre) high neon lights, emblazoned across the sky.
In fact, it left me convinced that Amaral had capitulated and, to this day, I still can't work out how it didn't.
Particularly in the light of the summary in the last chapter of Amaral's book, how could it not?
-
If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent
Trying to answer this as I find what I'm looking for. Re burden of proof in PT civil cases:
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_por_en.htm
-
If the burden of proof is on the mccanns...which I believe it isn't...why have all amarals witnesses being trying to prove his book is faithful to the files and none of the mccanns witnesses have tried to prove the mccanns innocent
Re the point about Amaral's witnesses: I can only presume that his witnesses were defending his honour in terms of what he believed to be true. However, I find it odd that a number of them stated that they hadn't actually read the book (or only bits of it) or watched the documentary.
Re: why would the witnesses for the McCanns need to to try to prove them innocent? Innocent of what? From memory, they were attesting to the added suffering, over and above the torment of their missing little girl, as a result of Amaral's spoutings. This would seem to concern the damage aspect which, unlike the UK, somehow needs to be proven.
-
Trying to answer this as I find what I'm looking for. Re burden of proof in PT civil cases:
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_por_en.htm
An alarm bell for Amaral?
The above rules are reversed when there is a legal presumption (consequence or inference which the law deduces from a known fact to establish an unknown one) , exemption or release from the obligation to comply with the above rules for the production of proof, or a valid agreement to that effect, when the opposing party has, culpably, made it impossible for the proof to be presented by the party which should produce it, and, in general, whenever the law so determines.
-
An alarm bell for Amaral?
The above rules are reversed when there is a legal presumption (consequence or inference which the law deduces from a known fact to establish an unknown one) , exemption or release from the obligation to comply with the above rules for the production of proof, or a valid agreement to that effect, when the opposing party has, culpably, made it impossible for the proof to be presented by the party which should produce it, and, in general, whenever the law so determines.
I'm not sure what that means though, FM. Wouldn't that be e.g., hiding proof that could prove that your allegation was false? If that's the case, I don't think he went that far.
-
I'm not sure what that means though, FM. Wouldn't that be e.g., hiding proof that could prove that your allegation was false? If that's the case, I don't think he went that far.
Preventing key witnesses from testifying?
-
Preventing key witnesses from testifying?
Who?
-
Who?
The McCanns.
Attempt number 2 tomorrow.
Maybe it'll succeed.
Maybe not ...
-
Re the point about Amaral's witnesses: I can only presume that his witnesses were defending his honour in terms of what he believed to be true. However, I find it odd that a number of them stated that they hadn't actually read the book (or only bits of it) or watched the documentary.
Re: why would the witnesses for the McCanns need to to try to prove them innocent? Innocent of what? From memory, they were attesting to the added suffering, over and above the torment of their missing little girl, as a result of Amaral's spoutings. This would seem to concern the damage aspect which, unlike the UK, somehow needs to be proven.
The point I am making is that some have said that the burden of proof is on the mccanns to prove amaral wrong.
What I am seeing from the witnesses is that amaral is trying to prove his thesis is reasonable whilst the McCanns are calling witnesses to quantify their suffering....that makes me think the burden of proof is on amaral
-
No news on the new lawyer
-
No news on the new lawyer
Probably hasn't got one and will be asking for more time.
-
Probably hasn't got one and will be asking for more time.
We shall see shortly.
-
There is a bizarre story that says he has appointed one that doesn't use a phone or email...it has to be a joke...doesn't it
-
The point I am making is that some have said that the burden of proof is on the mccanns to prove amaral wrong.
What I am seeing from the witnesses is that amaral is trying to prove his thesis is reasonable whilst the McCanns are calling witnesses to quantify their suffering....that makes me think the burden of proof is on amaral
Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).
So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.
All a bit confusing.
-
Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).
So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.
All a bit confusing.
I think its fairly obvious amaral is really struggling
-
I think its fairly obvious amaral is really struggling
Why don't you wait for the judgement of the court ?
-
There is a bizarre story that says he has appointed one that doesn't use a phone or email...it has to be a joke...doesn't it
Hmmm. I wonder if that's a bit of tabloid invention?
I still don't understand why he fired his last lawyer, just before the end of the trial...
-
Normally, the onus is on the plaintiff, unless there's a legal presumption that reverses it. However, I agree with you concerning the thrust of the testimonies, so perhaps there is a legal presumption that's applicable (or an assumption that there may be one).
So far, there's been no tearing apart of the allegations in terms of content (nor any mention of them, IIRC). It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.
All a bit confusing.
It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.
Probable or even likely in my opinion.
I reckon that what's been played out in court is the tip of the iceberg.
We must, always, remember that legal proceedings under the inquisitorial system are vastly different from those we are more used to under the adversarial.
-
It's possible that that's all contained in written submissions.
Probable or even likely in my opinion.
I reckon that what's been played out in court is the tip of the iceberg.
We must, always, remember that legal proceedings under the inquisitorial system are vastly different from those we are more used to under the adversarial.
Sorry, but what you reckon is wrong.
-
Sorry, but what you reckon is wrong.
So why did Santos open proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive?
Any idea?
-
Hate no,and no desire to meet them,
but I despise people who blame everyone else for their failures and call their behaviour 'exhibiting responsible parenting skills'.
It never was.
The blame game?? Dr Amaral has a long list of blame to explain his failures - international politics - British media - British police - the Diplomatic Service - MI5 - the NHS - Gordon Brown - Portuguese government - the Policia Judiciária - his superiors - his officers – his wife leaving him – his dog being killed - his 'minha dignidade' being shredded.
Anyway, having resolved his most recent difficulties with lawyers I am sure he will be relieved that the trial is about to reach its conclusion after many difficulties and delays over the past five years … I take it this is the same libel trial that started five years ago?
-
In Britain words do not have to be prove true or false to be deemed Libel or Defamation.
I know that we aren't talking about Britain, but it seems that something similar applies in Portugal.
-
If The McCanns are innocent, which I believe they are, then it doesn't require brain surgery to know that the book and the video will have had a devastating effect on The McCanns.
However, The Judge is apparently not interested in the guilt or innocence of either Goncalo Amaral or The McCanns, but only in whether or not the book and video would have caused distress to The McCanns.
This is a no brainer. In My Opinion.
Suppose, hypothetically, that Amaral had accused the McCanns of boiling new-born babies alive in some sort of Satanic ritual.
If the allegation is true, then the McCanns are monsters and should be locked up. Amaral would not have libelled them by making the claim.
But if the allegation is untrue then Amaral has libelled them and there should be a legal judgment against Amaral for libel.
In all countries (that have libel laws) questions of truth or untruth matter (to arrive at a judgment that libel, either has been committed, or has not).
To claim that truth or untruth doesn't matter is plain barking.
-
X,Y or Z may be able to prove damage, whether the allegations are true or not in a civil case, seemingly.
The difficulty seems to be in trying to prove and quantify damage.
It would be much more straightforward in some other types of civil cases, e.g, if someone's kid had thrown a football and broken a neighbour's glass greenhouse. The reparation would be to pay for the costs involved, i.e., restoring the situation to what it was prior to the event in cause.
However, how do you prove and quantify non-financial damage?
-
Although true or false doesn't seem to matter in Portugal in a Civil Action.
True or false must matter, for the simple reason that was true is not actionable.
I think there is an exception, referred to by Jean-Pierre way back, to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.
But that doctrine does no apply in the McCanns' action ...
-
What worries me is that if Goncalo Amaral wins this action then anyone including him can say whatever they like about anyone, as a Precident will be set in Law.
-
X,Y or Z may be able to prove damage, whether the allegations are true or not in a civil case, seemingly.
The difficulty seems to be in trying to prove and quantify damage.
It would be much more straightforward in some other types of civil cases, e.g, if someone's kid had thrown a football and broken a neighbour's glass greenhouse. The reparation would be to pay for the costs involved, i.e., restoring the situaton to what it was prior to the event in cause.
However, how do you prove and quantify non-financial damage?
I think, there, you are conflating negligence (a separate tort) with libel
Quantifying damage in the McCanns' action is as straightforward as calculating money made from the sale of the book and broadcast of the video, as well as from interviews propagating Amaral's lie.
-
What worries me is that if Goncalo Amaral wins this action then anyone including him can say whatever they like about anyone, as a Precident will be set in Law.
Victory for Amaral would, effectively, be the death-knell of libel in Portugal, I agree ...
-
I think, there, you are conflating negligence (a separate tort) with libel
Quantifying damage in the McCanns' action is as straightforward as calculating money made from the sale of the book and broadcast of the video, as well as from interviews propagating Amaral's lie.
That seems to be the basis of the amount claimed as damages, but I haven't found which articles in the civil code would support that.
-
Victory for Amaral would, effectively, be the death-knell of libel in Portugal, I agree ...
No, not necessarily. Everyone and their brother seems to be accusing each other of criminal libel.
Even a journalist faced a criminal suit, apparently, for calling the president a clown. That's a criminal offence in PT.
Author investigated for calling Portuguese President ‘a clown'
Share on Facebook
By Robert Myles / Editor-at-Large
May 25, 2013 in Politics
+
Lisbon - Portugal's Attorney General has opened an investigation after celebrated author, Miguel Sousa Tavares, called Portugal’s head of state, President Silva, a clown in an interview. The author’s remarks could see him facing a three year jail term.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, the knockabout of politics comes with the territory. In the United States, it’s easy to imagine Barack Obama shrugging his shoulders were a heckler to use the clown epithet. Obama's been called a lot worse. In Australia, it’s become almost de rigueur for politicians to bandy insults when referring to their opponents. But in Portugal, thin skinned politicians in high office have the force of law to back them up.
In an interview with a journalist from the Portuguese business daily Jornal de Negocios, author Miguel Sousa Tavares had been asked about the possibility of a personality emerging in Portuguese politics similar to actor and politician Beppe Grillo in Italy, reports BBC News.
In response to the journalist’s question, author Miguel Sousa Tavares replied, "We already have a clown. His name (Anibal) Cavaco Silva."
Just a few hours after the interview was published the Attorney General’s office reportedly opened an investigation on whether Tavares’ comments constituted the offence of ‘insulting the honor’ of the Portuguese president.
Insulting the honor of the Head of State in Portugal constitutes an offence under Article 328 of the country’s Penal Code, says Portuguese daily Expresso. There, in law, those who insult or defame the President of the Republic can be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. And the statute goes on, magnifying the seriousness of Tavares alleged offence, ""If the libel or slander is made through words uttered publicly, publishing writing or drawing, or by any technical means of communication with the public, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years or with a fine and not less than 60 days imprisonment.""
The threat of landing in jail may have caused author Tavares to reflect. After his reported remarks appeared, he appears to have backtracked. Portuguese Lusa news agency says Tavares admitted it was “excessive” to call the President a clown.
And it didn’t end there, as if to prove that Portuguese politicians must be sensitive souls indeed, Portuguese Social Democrat politician Jorge Moreira da Silva expressed outrage at Tavares’ remarks. Released in a statement, da Silva said, "“The Social Democrat Party repudiates the insulting remarks of Miguel Sousa Tavares, and considers these exceeded the bounds of political combat. The fact that they were uttered by a person with additional responsibilities to the general public, resulting from his long and renowned career as a journalist, author, columnist and political commentator, makes these statements even more objectionable from the standpoint of the PSD.""
The role of the Portuguese President is largely ceremonial. In the case of President Aníbal Cavaco Silva, some of his previous utterances have raised a few eyebrows. Speaking of the numbers of Portuguese in public services, often reckoned to enjoy ‘jobs for life,’ he’s reputed to have said, “It's wait for them to die.” French daily Le Monde reports that President Silva was recently mocked by his compatriots for having said that "intervention of Our Lady of Fatima" has probably allowed Portugal, with financial assistance, to obtain a clean bill of health from its creditors.
At least author Miguel Sousa Tavares can count himself lucky on one score. Portugal abolished capital punishment for most civil crimes as far back as 1867. Otherwise these sensitive Portuguese politicians might have been crying, “Off with his head!”
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350799#ixzz37AeIYNRw
-
What worries me is that if Goncalo Amaral wins this action then anyone including him can say whatever they like about anyone, as a Precident will be set in Law.
That may depend on whether the litigation is civil or criminal.
Murat won his civil case, albeit on appeal, and for a pittance.
-
That seems to be the basis of the amount claimed as damages, but I haven't found which articles in the civil code would support that.
I suspect there is little or no precedent in Portuguese law of a book sold in such vast numbers that perpetrates such libel.
The award to Robert Murat was relatively modest because no book was written about him.
Not for nothing is the judge wanting to know how much he made from the sale of his book ...
-
That may depend on whether the litigation is civil or criminal.
Murat won his civil case, albeit on appeal, and for a pittance.
Agreed. And the choice appears to depend on The Claimant. Which is easiest to win? Does anyone know?
-
If they were true, I doubt that The McCanns would have brought this action in the first place. Although true or false doesn't seem to matter in Portugal in a Civil Action.
It would have been so much easier to just disappear than continue to fight for their little girl.
I disagree with those who assert that it's obvious that the McCanns will win based on concepts of libel in UK law. I would wholeheartedy agree if this were a UK trial, but it isn't. It just doesn't seem to work that way in PT.
If the McCanns were to lose, I can anticipate the crowing from certain quarters that the McCanns lost the "libel" case and that therefore everything Amaral ever spouted must therefore be true, when, in reality, it just doesn't seem to be about "libel" (in a UK sense) in the first place.
-
I suspect there is little or no precedent in Portuguese law of a book sold in such vast numbers that perpetrates such libel.
The award to Robert Murat was relatively modest because no book was written about him.
Not for nothing is the judge wanting to know how much he made from the sale of his book ...
Hmmm. I haven't checked to what extent he appears in the various books... However, the constant coverage in tabloid media and the money to be made at the time by the media makes his award for damages seem pathetic, IMO.
-
Agreed. And the choice appears to depend on The Claimant. Which is easiest to win? Does anyone know?
I'd need to double-check. From memory, it's quite easy to file a criminal claim and apparently it doesn't cost that much to file. The loser can face a prison sentence, but more likely a fine. However, from what I've read there are quite a few conditions which I can't remember offhand.
-
Although true or false doesn't seem to matter in Portugal in a Civil Action.
Of course true or false matters.
In any country that has libel laws, an allegation proved true (however damaging to the reputation of the person against whom it is made) will not give rise to an action in libel.
In that sense, truth (or its absence) and libel are inextricably linked.
The only exception in the Napoleonic Code seems to be one Jean-Pierre referred to way back to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.
That doctrine does not apply in the McCanns' action.
-
Specifically this refers to the re-organisation of the court structures which will be implemented in September. The current list of about 300 first-instance courts will be reduced to 23. Those that are no longer classed as full courts may still operate as subsidiary courts.
http://www.nc-advogados.com/2014/04/new-judicial-organization.html
There may be repercussions in other courts with regard to timing of cases.
The Portuguese legal system was identified by the EU as one of the major problems in stimulating growth in the Portuguese economy.
This article from Reuters very succinctly explains the background with businesses tied up in court cases for upwards of 20 years without seeing any results..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-portugal-judiciary-reform-idUSBRE88I09V20120919
The EU demanded a programme of legal reform as part of its requirements for continued financial assistance. Those reforms included a restructuring of the court system (to be implemented in September), an improvement to the Civil Legal Code (which was implemented in September last year) and specific reforms to debt law in Portugal.
One point related to the changes in the Civil code is that the Judges hearing current cases (as in the McCann case) have until September of this year (as the theoretical deadline) to ensure that any procedural changes from the previous code to the current one are dealt with. This means that there may be procedural issues which the Judge in the McCann case has not yet dealt with. As an example there are a lot of changes to the way in which final hearings in court cases are dealt with and the judge may still have to consider these changes.
Further references:
http://ec.europa.eu/portugal/pdf/comissao/destaques/portugal_programme_assessment_15052014_en.pdf
http://www.amsa.pt/xms/files/cil_procedures_lax_21_ago_2013.pdf
If mods believe that this answer to a question on this thread is off-topic could it be moved to a separate thread rather than simply be deleted? Personally, I believe it is entirely on-topic.
That was interesting reading. Thanks, Gilet.
-
I'd need to double-check. From memory, it's quite easy to file a criminal claim and apparently it doesn't cost that much to file. The loser can face a prison sentence, but more likely a fine. However, from what I've read there are quite a few conditions which I can't remember offhand.
Thanks.
This is a really good discussion, by the way
-
Although true or false doesn't seem to matter in Portugal in a Civil Action.
Of course true or false matters.
In any country that has libel laws, an allegation proved true (however damaging to the reputation of the person against whom it is made) will not give rise to an action in libel.
In that sense, truth (or its absence) and libel are inextricably linked.
The only exception in the Napoleonic Code seems to be one Jean-Pierre referred to way back to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.
That doctrine does not apply in the McCanns' action.
I am not disagreeing with you. Just trying to understand Portuguese Civil Law.
-
Is that not what the judge is required to determine?
No
-
What worries me is that if Goncalo Amaral wins this action then anyone including him can say whatever they like about anyone, as a Precident will be set in Law.
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
It was confirmed that the McCanns hid their child's body was it? Which part of the files was that, remind me?
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
What he wrote has not been confirmed anywhere, let alone in the Police Files.
But never mind, if you are prepared to accept that you could be maligned one day then so be it.
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
Where is it confirmed in the official archival ruling that she'd died in the apartment, the parents had concealed her body, and faked an abduction?
I must have missed it...
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
Freedom of speech...what rubbish...haven't we read today that a Portuguese journalist may face jail for calling the prime minister a clown
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
what he wrote was NOT confirmed in the files ...the files gave possibilities ...amaral claimed things as fact....its a shame you don't understand the real facts
-
They know the truth, even if you CHOOSE to disbelieve it.
Twee
Very Twee
Especially as SY have stated that they have no interest in the Mccanns
You have been suckered in Slarti by all the disinformation, myths, red herrings, lies and propaganda.
Almost certainly some group is making mighty mega bucks, millions and millions per year, out of various traffickings
....... and they have very skilfully put out persuasive stuff, professionallly produced propaganda, that you all have fallen for.
Sorry but it seems that you have been suckered in
Just try and extract your head and think a little.
If it happened to Brietta, then it is first hand and she can state how it affects her and her family. Brietta is not KM we assume, so only has her belief in what KM says based on whatever factors she chooses, so she cannot state as fact how anything affects the McCanns.
-
Yes, that freedom of speech thing is a real bumber isn't it? Gonçalo Amaral didn't say just anything, he wrote a book about an investigation and what he wrote was confirmed in the police files.
Where is it confirmed that Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer?
-
Where is it confirmed that Kate sacked a Leicestershire Police liaison officer?
Where is it confirmed that he was present at any of the key moments? As he said himself, there are many ways of coordinating an investigation. And as he also stated in his book, he was often in a restaurant/bar at these key times. If that's the case, how much is hearsay?
-
what he wrote was NOT confirmed in the files ...the files gave possibilities ...amaral claimed things as fact....its a shame you don't understand the real facts
What Gonçalo Amaral wrote in his book was also in the police files which were made public. And as for facts, you still consider the abduction scenario as a fact when there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate it.
-
What Gonçalo Amaral wrote in his book was also in the police files which were made public. And as for facts, you still consider the abduction scenario as a fact when there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate it.
you have listened to too much Portuguese propaganda...there is evidence to support the abduction...amaral was not true to the files
-
Excellent response, couldn't have put it better myself but no doubt you'll probably bee accused of "whipping up hysteria" for your post.
Probably not, actually........not by me , anyway.......
"Whipping up hysteria" needs your soothsayer`s "mark my words " trembling finger of prediction........
What "these people"......the likes of those sceptics and doubters will be doing, thinking, feeling ...........and how it will inevitably impact on the McCanns and the twins.
Designed to stir up the gullible , the faithful, or both.............. i.m.o of course.
-
you have listened to too much Portuguese propaganda...there is evidence to support the abduction...amaral was not true to the files
You better tell the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa that he was not true to the files because, in their acordão, the judges stated that the book was based on the files and they did not point out any inaccuracies.
-
Probably not, actually........not by me , anyway.......
"Whipping up hysteria" needs your soothsayer`s "mark my words " trembling finger of prediction........
What "these people"......the likes of those sceptics and doubters will be doing, thinking, feeling ...........and how it will inevitably impact on the McCanns and the twins.
Designed to stir up the gullible , the faithful, or both.............. i.m.o of course.
More puzzling hyperbole from a doubter, interspersed with lots of dots.....i.m.o. of course.
-
More puzzling hyperbole from a doubter, interspersed with lots of dots.....i.m.o. of course.
No opinion about it............the dots are definitely there all right.
-
No opinion about it............the dots are definitely there all right.
What's with the dots.........out of interest?
-
What's with the dots.........out of interest?
Oh....just a habit, possibly..........a bit like whipping up hysteria is with you, maybe.
-
Oh....just a habit, possibly..........a bit like whipping up hysteria is with you, maybe.
It's an intersting habit you have, one I've come across before. Very interesting indeed...
-
It's an intersting habit you have, one I've come across before. Very interesting indeed...
Your habit on the other hand is not at all interesting..........just disingenuous, i.m.o.
Maybe you should check my posting history for dots since you are so interested?
(*Give me strength*)
-
Your habit on the other hand is not at all interesting..........just disingenuous, i.m.o.
Maybe you should check my posting history for dots since you are so interested?
(*Give me strength*)
Au comtraire, you seem to find my so-called habit of whipping up hysteria so interesting you mention it to me regularly. I think you are quite fascinated by it, go on admit it!
-
Au comtraire, you seem to find my so-called habit of whipping up hysteria so interesting you mention it to me regularly. I think you are quite fascinated by it, go on admit it!
Erm.......dot... dot.... dot.........I think you`ll find you mentioned it in your reply to Brietta....
( you fascinating wee rascal ! )
-
Erm.......dot... dot.... dot.........I think you`ll find you mentioned it in your reply to Brietta....
( you fascinating wee rascal ! )
Interesting fact: around half of all the posts you have made on this forum this month have been addressed to fascinating little old hysterical moi *deeply flattered face*
-
Interesting fact: around half of all the posts you have made on this forum this month have been addressed to fascinating little old hysterical moi *deeply flattered face*
Are you really flattered by it?
Good Lord.........
-
Are you really flattered by it?
Good Lord.........
No, not really. Bored of this conversation now. Have you anything on topic to add to this thread or do you just want to keep harping on at me?
-
..........six of one and a half dozen of the other.
...........but, if you don`t want replies don`t bait!
-
Just try and extract your head and think a little.
If it happened to Brietta, then it is first hand and she can state how it affects her and her family. Brietta is not KM we assume, so only has her belief in what KM says based on whatever factors she chooses, so she cannot state as fact how anything affects the McCanns.
I can assure you that I think a great deal more than you do.
I can also assure you that Brietta has one of the clearest brains on here. And she thinks in depth and weiighs up well before she speaks.
-
Erm.......dot... dot.... dot.........I think you`ll find you mentioned it in your reply to Brietta....
( you fascinating wee rascal ! )
Gawd, Alfred
This wee Scot is keen on you! Watch out.
-
You confuse the alleged book libel which was quashed with the current proceedings which are about compensation.
precisely John
-
In Britain words do not have to be prove true or false to be deemed Libel or Defamation.
I know that we aren't talking about Britain, but it seems that something similar applies in Portugal.
That's not the case Eleanor. In the UK libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Under English Law it is the defendant who requires to prove that the alleged libel is true or made as fair comment.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
-
Suppose, hypothetically, that Amaral had accused the McCanns of boiling new-born babies alive in some sort of Satanic ritual.
If the allegation is true, then the McCanns are monsters and should be locked up. Amaral would not have libelled them by making the claim.
But if the allegation is untrue then Amaral has libelled them and there should be a legal judgment against Amaral for libel.
In all countries (that have libel laws) questions of truth or untruth matter (to arrive at a judgment that libel, either has been committed, or has not).
To claim that truth or untruth doesn't matter is plain barking.
I concur with that ferryman, thus the bottom line is if the McCanns are totally innocent then they have suffered dreadfully as a consequence of Gonçalo's hypothesis but if they aren't then they brought it all upon themselves. I cannot see how any Court regardless of the jurisdiction could decide this before it is known what really happened to Maddie.
You cant pay compensation to a guilty party or can you?
-
That's not the case Eleanor. In the UK libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Under English Law it is the defendant who requires to prove that the alleged libel is true or made as fair comment.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
It can be if done with malicious intent, John.
-
It can be if done with malicious intent, John.
I am not so sure that a true statement made with malicious intent in the UK constitutes a libel, can you provide any cites for this?
-
Gawd, Alfred
This wee Scot is keen on you! Watch out.
Well someone has to keep an eye on her tendency to whip up hysteria, even though being on bullshit alert is not a happy task.
-
I am not so sure that a true statement made with malicious intent in the UK constitutes a libel, can you provide any cites for this?
No, Just Google. But I have waded through so much that I can't remember where it was.
Incidentally, at the time of the rumours that Robert Murat was suing Jane Tanner, it was reported to have been said by Murat's lawyer that Jane Tanner was being sued in Portugal because her supposed statement regarding recognising Robert Murat as the man carrying the child, was given with Malicious Intent.
Very convoluted, I do agree, and I wouldn't know where to look for any Internet information on that either.
But it might be suggested that Malicious Intent is a crime in Portugal.
However, I don't suppose for a minute that Amaral could be accused of that.
-
I concur with that ferryman, thus the bottom line is if the McCanns are totally innocent then they have suffered dreadfully as a consequence of Gonçalo's hypothesis but if they aren't then they brought it all upon themselves. I cannot see how any Court regardless of the jurisdiction could decide this before it is known what really happened to Maddie.
You cant pay compensation to a guilty party or can you?
In the absence of due process and conviction, the McCanns are in law innocent.
Amaral has accused them of committing criminal offences, and in doing so has caused them reputational damage and distress.
This is one of the reasons why it is a really bad idea for ex police officers to write books about cases they have failed to solve. Amaral exposed himself to the risk that the McCanns would (quite correctly in my view) sue him for defamation and expect substantial damages.
-
precisely John
The injunction preventing publication of the book was overturned. The ringfencing of funds still stands.
The libel trial is currently reaching its conclusion.
The level of compensation to the damaged party, and award of costs, is yet to come.
-
What is the difference between libel/slander and malicious falsehood?
In malicious falsehood the claimant must prove:
the words are false;
the words were published maliciously; and
special damage has flowed from their publication unless the publication falls within certain criteria.
The words need not be defamatory, but they must be false.
In addition, the claimant carries the burden of proving all three elements which can make the claim more difficult than a libel claim.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp
Further up on that page:
When are words defamatory?
There is no set definition of 'defamatory'. A statement may be considered to be defamatory if it tends to do any one of the following:
lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally;
disparage a claimant in his business, trade, office or profession;
expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt; or
cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.
Whether or not a statement has that effect is measured against the standard of the reasonable man generally and not a limited class of people who may have different standards from the majority of members of society.
Common examples of what may be considered defamatory are allegations that suggest a person is:
Immoral
Dishonest
Corrupt
Insolvent or in serious financial difficulties
Incompetent
Guilty of a criminal offence
The producer of shoddy goods
Standards of morality constantly change and so what would have been immoral twenty years ago may not necessarily be so today.
Determining the meaning of words gives rise to a great degree of uncertainty in a libel action. It is not only the superficial meaning that may be defamatory but also any 'hidden' meaning which can be inferred. There are three levels of meaning to be aware of:
inference, in other words a meaning that can be read between the lines without any specialist knowledge; and
innuendo, a meaning which can be attributed to the words by readers who have a specialist knowledge.
The onus is on the claimant to show the facts giving rise to the innuendo and that these facts are known to the readers. For example, to say that a person eats meat is not defamatory on its face; if, however, some readers know that the person professes to be a committed vegetarian, the statement may be considered defamatory, suggesting he is hypocritical or dishonest.
The words must be put in their full context, including headings and captions to any photographs. For the purpose of deciding whether words are defamatory, the intention of the author is irrelevant. All that matters is the impression which the words give to readers.
It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
-
Defamation Act 2013
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf
-
The injunction preventing publication of the book was overturned. The ringfencing of funds still stands.
The libel trial is currently reaching its conclusion.
The level of compensation to the damaged party, and award of costs, is yet to come.
That was nice and succinct, Jean-Pierre.
-
Just try and extract your head and think a little.
If it happened to Brietta, then it is first hand and she can state how it affects her and her family. Brietta is not KM we assume, so only has her belief in what KM says based on whatever factors she chooses, so she cannot state as fact how anything affects the McCanns.
You have misunderstood my original post or you are misrepresenting what I have said.
I would never presume to put myself into the shoes of someone who was the victim of disaster nor would I analyse that person’s actions. The simple truth being that no-one knows exactly how they would react in a given situation.
That does not prevent me observing.
That does not prevent the learned judge from deliberating; and it is on her deliberation of the evidence and what is applicable in law that will determine how she rules in this case.
-
I concur with that ferryman, thus the bottom line is if the McCanns are totally innocent then they have suffered dreadfully as a consequence of Gonçalo's hypothesis but if they aren't then they brought it all upon themselves. I cannot see how any Court regardless of the jurisdiction could decide this before it is known what really happened to Maddie.
You cant pay compensation to a guilty party or can you?
First...compensation has been paid to guilty parties in the UK..
Secondly if what you are saying is true the case would have been thrown out years ago and amaral would have had all his money returned
-
McCanns face five-year wait in libel trial
KATE and Gerry McCann's battle to sue a disgraced ex-police chief for £1million in libel damages could drag on for another five years, a pal revealed yesterday.
By Tracey Kandohla / Published 13th July 2014
News of the setback came after the parents of missing Madeleine gave evidence against Goncalo Amaral in a Lisbon court.
Kate told the trial how smears by their tormentor left her family "devastated, fearful and desperate".
But Mr Amaral, who led the bungled hunt for Maddie, now claims he is broke.
A judge is set to call him back to court in September to order him and the publishers of his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie to reveal how much was made from the best-seller and a 2009 TV documentary.
A source close to Kate and Gerry said: "They are exasperated by this. Civil proceedings against Mr Amaral have already been going on for five years and at this rate are likely to go on for another five years.
"He is pleading poverty and there will be further hearings held for him to disclose his bank statements."
Even if Kate, 46, and Gerry, 45, of Rothley, Leics, win the case, they will probably not see any money until 2018 or 2019.
Their lawyer Isabel Duarte said: "It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 euros in one year from the book."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/388686/McCanns-face-five-year-wait-in-libel-trial
-
McCanns face five-year wait in libel trial
KATE and Gerry McCann's battle to sue a disgraced ex-police chief for £1million in libel damages could drag on for another five years, a pal revealed yesterday.
By Tracey Kandohla / Published 13th July 2014
News of the setback came after the parents of missing Madeleine gave evidence against Goncalo Amaral in a Lisbon court.
Kate told the trial how smears by their tormentor left her family "devastated, fearful and desperate".
But Mr Amaral, who led the bungled hunt for Maddie, now claims he is broke.
A judge is set to call him back to court in September to order him and the publishers of his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie to reveal how much was made from the best-seller and a 2009 TV documentary.
A source close to Kate and Gerry said: "They are exasperated by this. Civil proceedings against Mr Amaral have already been going on for five years and at this rate are likely to go on for another five years.
"He is pleading poverty and there will be further hearings held for him to disclose his bank statements."
Even if Kate, 46, and Gerry, 45, of Rothley, Leics, win the case, they will probably not see any money until 2018 or 2019.
Their lawyer Isabel Duarte said: "It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 euros in one year from the book."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/388686/McCanns-face-five-year-wait-in-libel-trial
Kate and Gerry will not have to go to court again if the do not wish...amarals assets will remain frozen...having said that I'm not sure how much truth there is in this story
-
With the new judiciary map (mapa judiciária) to be implemented in September, I hope that this case and many others will not be dragging out for another 5 years. It seems that no one, except the government and the troika, want these changes. Some predict utter chaos.
-
With the new judiciary map (mapa judiciária) to be implemented in September, I hope that this case and many others will not be dragging out for another 5 years. It seems that no one, except the government and the troika, want these changes. Some predict utter chaos.
I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?
He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?
-
I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?
He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?
He is obviously desperate to delay judgement in this trial … he did it when it was possible for him to win … so what’s another five years on top of the last five years, when it looks as if his star has waned and he is unwilling to take a chance that the judgement could go against him - as looks probable.
Wonder how he will spin deliberately prolonging an expensive lawsuit to his paying public when he is asking for additional funds.
-
I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?
He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?
This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.
-
This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.
That is always one of the risks with any legal action. With libel of course where the rules are that each party pays its own costs the gamble is "will the damages pay the legal fees". If not it is a Pyrrhic victory.
-
That is always one of the risks with any legal action. With libel of course where the rules are that each party pays its own costs the gamble is "will the damages pay the legal fees". If not it is a Pyrrhic victory.
any victory which punishes amaral and vindicates the mccanns will be far from pyrrhic even if all the money goes to the lawyers
-
any victory which punishes amaral and vindicates the mccanns will be far from pyrrhic even if all the money goes to the lawyers
You have failed to think that through properly sir.
-
This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.
AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.
-
AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.
Can we clarify what this is about?
-
AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.
No Amaral caused it by not declaring his income as demanded weeks earlier
-
No Amaral caused it by not declaring his income as demanded weeks earlier
Can you prove that ?
-
You have failed to think that through properly sir.
how can you possibly know that to be true
-
He is obviously desperate to delay judgement in this trial … he did it when it was possible for him to win … so what’s another five years on top of the last five years, when it looks as if his star has waned and he is unwilling to take a chance that the judgement could go against him - as looks probable.
Wonder how he will spin deliberately prolonging an expensive lawsuit to his paying public when he is asking for additional funds.
What delays in the case have been caused by Amaral and Mccann?
-
A question for Jean-Pierre.
What bearing, if any, will the overturning of the injunction have on the libel trial? is
ETA:
I suppose I should clarify
What I mean is this. The judgment overturning the injunction found that the book is based on the files.
It isn't, but ignore that.
If the court found that it was (based on the files) does that mean that the McCanns cannot challenge the apparently "factual" basis of the book?
-
I'm interested in Jean-Pierre's view as well.
I'm not so sure any more that they do need to challenge the content...
Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."
ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)
Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
It says fact, not false statement.
-
A European Commission comparative study on personal rights (covering defamation).
The section on Portugal starts p. 121.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf
-
I'm interested in Jean-Pierre's view as well.
I'm not so sure any more that they do need to challenge the content...
Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."
ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)
Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.
It says fact, not false statement.
I think the clue is in the follow-up
... capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person,
A fact that's factual wouldn't do that ...
-
I think the clue is in the follow-up
... capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person,
A fact that's factual wouldn't do that ...
But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced? I don't think so. Furthermore, all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published. Therefore, if those facts prejudiced the parents' good name, the facts would have done so before when these facts had already been in the newspapers. Also, there were three other books published about the case much earlier, so why choose Gonçalo Amaral's book? My cynical side thinks that the reason is that it made a lot more money. Why didn't the McCanns sue right after the book was released?
-
But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced? I don't think so. Furthermore, all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published. Therefore, if those facts prejudiced the parents' good name, the facts would have done so before when these facts had already been in the newspapers. Also, there were three other books published about the case much earlier, so why choose Gonçalo Amaral's book? My cynical side thinks that the reason is that it made a lot more money. Why didn't the McCanns sue right after the book was released?
I suppose you have a point concerning: "...all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published". The flagrant disregard for judicial secrecy under his watch probably won't be considered in the libel trial.
-
But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced?
Why not?
Purely as an example, there is the Gerry not Madeleine's father canard and there is a direct reference from the files that tends to link Amaral to it.
Purely as an example ...
-
But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced?
Why not?
Purely as an example, there is the Gerry not Madeleine's father canard and there is a direct reference from the files that tends to link Amaral to it.
Purely as an example ...
''good'' name ???