Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[John]

Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.

You have highlighted an interesting point.  The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann.  The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.

[Angelo222]

... and could I just say ... your post is bordering on libel.  There was no evidence.

That's just not true Brietta.  The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.

[jassi]

You have highlighted an interesting point.  The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann.  The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.

As the directors mostly are the  McCann/Kennedy  family, or family friends, who is going to say nay to them?

[Angelo222]

As the directors mostly are the  McCann/Kennedy  family, or family friends, who is going to say nay to them?

Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money?  I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.

[jassi]

Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money?  I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.

I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it was, merely that there is no one to stop them doing so.

[Mr Gray]

That's just not true Brietta.  The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.

Everything you refer to has been explained...more than once... imo....and hence the McCann's are not suspects

[Mr Gray]

You have highlighted an interesting point.  The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann.  The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.

A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs

[Sunny]

A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs

Clearly not Davel but their parents being the instigators of the action should pay 100% of their costs as they lost and IMO it shouldn't be down to a so called fund to pay their litigation costs.  The fund was supposed to be for searching not suing others and as far as I am aware their official website has never referred to funds that were donated by others being spent in the litigation courts. IMO this includes royalties from Kate's book as "every penny" was to be spent on searching. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is it true that money was donated by the general public for actual searching?  Why would the general public donate a million pounds in the first few weeks of a police investigation, did the general public think back then that no one was looking for Madeleine?

[G-Unit]

Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money?  I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.

At the beginning it was justified in the accounts by saying that the book harmed the search for Madeleine. The claimants were unable to prove that assertion, however,

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So any funding of the action after April 2015 must have a different justification. After all, Operation Grange had taken up 'the search' by then, as had the PJ again.

[Brietta]

That's just not true Brietta.  The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.

Nothing you have referred to is evidence of guilt, Angelo, if it had been I have absolutely no doubt that the first investigation would have leapt on it and used it against them.

As far as I am concerned Kate took exactly the right course of action in following her lawyer's advice at her arguida interview; in contrast to Gerry who answered them all ... and still was not incriminated.

The 'evidence' to which you refer appeared in print in the publications which had to apologise for it.  It was libellous for the simple reason it was false.  Therefore any statement using it as a basis for insinuation is libel, ask Sally Bercow.

If *Innocent face* was admitted to be defamatory ... just think for a moment the nature of the defamation endured by Kate and Gerry.

It should not be forgotten that the Portuguese police and judiciary thoroughly checked out the circumstances of the making of the arguidos and singularly did not follow the route they took preferring instead to follow the evidence.

[G-Unit]

A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs

Of course not. Children can't decide to sue someone. In Madeleine's case she was a ward of court so the parents had to get the court's permission to include her.

The children weren't involved in the Appeal and Supreme Court proceedings either.

[Sunny]

Is it true that money was donated by the general public for actual searching?  Why would the general public donate a million pounds in the first few weeks of a police investigation, did the general public think back then that no one was looking for Madeleine?

Can you point out where on findmadeleine it says your money will be spent suing an ex policeman. Doesn't it say help with the "search". They won't find her in a law court.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Can you point out where on findmadeleine it says your money will be spent suing an ex policeman. Doesn't it say help with the "search". They won't find her in a law court.

That wasn’t the question I asked.  What motivated people to send money in the first few weeks, when the majority of money was donated?

[Sunny]

That wasn’t the question I asked.  What motivated people to send money in the first few weeks, when the majority of money was donated?

But they weren't suing in the first few weeks, however they were suing when Kate brought out her book and having read it I didn't see any reference to using fund money to sue Amaral. I could be wrong so please point out the relevant passage in madeleine if there is one.