Author Topic: Given the Appellate Courts decision, is the libel trial a foregone conclusion?  (Read 70349 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sadie

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.

Offline Carana

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.
 

Offline Mr Gray

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

Offline John

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. 
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

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

Offline John

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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 11:44:19 AM by Mr Moderator »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

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.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 12:34:34 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Eleanor



Bravo Eleanor!  8@??)(   @)(++(*

Ah. But, did I manage to stay On Topic?

Offline Mr Gray

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...

Offline John

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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

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

Offline Mr Gray

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

Offline sadie

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

ferryman

  • Guest
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?

stephen25000

  • Guest
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

Court of Appeal explained

I would concur with that.