I wonder why the Trial date has not been set

jeanmonroe wrote:mossman wrote:
I stand to be corrected but I understand the law in Portugal is opposite to the UK. The onus is on the McCanns to prove their case.
------------------------------------------------------------

No need to be corrected, you are absolutely RIGHT,

The Mccanns HAVE to PROVE their claims.

Thanks  

If i remember correctly with Amaral v Marcos...the judge accepted Amarals claim that it was not the truth but ruled against Amaral because Marcos believed he was telling the truth...pretty hard to prove libel in Portugal?

jeanmonroe wrote:mossman wrote:
I stand to be corrected but I understand the law in Portugal is opposite to the UK. The onus is on the McCanns to prove their case.
------------------------------------------------------------

No need to be corrected, you are absolutely RIGHT,

The Mccanns HAVE to PROVE their claims.

But what are the claims and what claim is sufficient in Portugal to find someone guilty? mcCanns can make all kinds of claims and as can he himself - kate's bewk did Amaral no favors nor the other "f*cking t*sser" she went on and on about

They say it hurt their health and the search,. I think not.

I would show the statements the parents made that the twins were fine - and if they are not fine it is due to the loss of their sister & its impact on their family (due to her being left unattended by their parents, along with themselves) not to the book.

The book only heightened awareness of the case and this idea that the Fund was for a Search is just silly. it was for awareness and some (15%?) detective work, but mainly "to help the family" whatever that means. Range Rover, holiday abroad, mortgage payments on McMansion, etc.

If they were so worried about the Search they could have volunteered to reconstruct and cooperate with the PJ and the case would not have been shelved; then they'd have a proper investigation - once they helped rule themselves out.

matthew wrote:If i remember correctly with Amaral v Marcos...the judge accepted Amarals claim that it was not the truth but ruled against Amaral because Marcos believed he was telling the truth...pretty hard to prove libel in Portugal?

Yes. Is seems freedom of speech is held in high regard there and forms part of their Constitution.

Panda wrote:
.........but Amaral is a Portuguese Citizen being tried in a Portugese Court ,
--------------------------------------------------

GA is NOT on being 'tried' or 'on trial' anywhere!

This is a CIVIL case NOT a CRIMINAL one.

He is a 'defendant' (alongside 'others') in a case of libel brought against him by the McCanns.

matthew wrote:If i remember correctly with Amaral v Marcos...the judge accepted Amarals claim that it was not the truth but ruled against Amaral because Marcos believed he was telling the truth...pretty hard to prove libel in Portugal?

If they want to settle out of court - ie drop the case because they know they will lose - I wonder if that is possible?

The papers will have a big bonanza from this and perhaps K&G are counting on this, someone will print something defamatory and then they can go after a paper in the UK court where it is easier to prove libel.

meanwhile the PJ is now looking into a murder in the apt and again - this is where their investigation leads them so if MM was dead on May 3 then she is beyond harm from this book or anything else.

Lots of broad grinning photos of them only days after the loss, including up til their latest appearance at the footie - you can smile and enjoy yourself when you are hurting inside, of course, even if you are in the throes of deep depression so that doesn't really show they aren't in some way harmed. However pics tell a thousand words and make a big impact when you are attempting to press the notion that you are consistently shattered etc or a whatever they've said.

They did need to do a lot of reputational damage control but they could have done that by telling the truth and getting the investigation on the right track - rather than trying to wage a media campaign that always seemed like it was more geared to their reputation than to searching for their daughter.

I think any normal person would be shocked at their having the UK media monitor out pimping this story and any fake sightings he could pay for, as if that caused "awareness" rather than cynicism. Do the right thing, Judge.

They need someone who is fair and impartial to tell them off for all of this drama, and the true damage they caused and try to cause to Portugal.

matthew wrote:If i remember correctly with Amaral v Marcos...the judge accepted Amarals claim that it was not the truth but ruled against Amaral because Marcos believed he was telling the truth...pretty hard to prove libel in Portugal?

I remember that case matthew, although Amaral won, he had to pay the Court costs . This is where it gets tricky, the PJ Final Report gives 4 theories as to what happened to Madeleine and after 7 years, sad to say , we might never know what happened to Madeleine.

There was a famous case in the U.K. where there was no body so the husband was not charged with anything. The Woman's body was found 16 years later at the bottom of the Lake District , found by a Diver. The Husband was tried in Court and found guilty of her Murder.

Madeleine's body may never be found and if she was abducted and sold to a Couple in Outer Mongolia, we will never know what happened.

They need someone who is fair and impartial to tell them off for all of this drama, and the true damage they caused and try to cause to Portugal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell that to the OC workers that lost their jobs, in 2007, due to the McCann 'effect'

Would you book up at MW, OC PDL after the Met police and Mccanns tell you 'the place is absolutely crawling with, child abducting burglars, gypsies, paedos' etc?

And STILL MW have not commented, recent proclamations by SY/Met, on possible 'reputational damage' to their 'image' of family friendly resort at PDL.

Weird, innit?

I don't think the McCanns can drop the case, Widowan...believe all parties must agree to any out of court settlement?


 

jeanmonroe wrote:They need someone who is fair and impartial to tell them off for all of this drama, and the true damage they caused and try to cause to Portugal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell that to the OC workers that lost their jobs, in 2007, due to the McCann 'effect'

Would you book up at MW, OC PDL after the Met police and Mccanns tell you 'the place is absolutely crawling with, child abducting burglars, gypsies, paedos' etc?

And STILL MW have not commented, recent proclamations by SY/Met, on possible 'reputational damage' to their 'image' of family friendly resort at PDL.

Weird, innit?

Yes, the McCanns caused a lot of damage, not least to Mrs McCann, the owner of 5a who lost a lot of income and as you say the loss of jobs at PDL, residents say the whole resort has suffered.

jeanmonroe wrote:They need someone who is fair and impartial to tell them off for all of this drama, and the true damage they caused and try to cause to Portugal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell that to the OC workers that lost their jobs, in 2007, due to the McCann 'effect'

Would you book up at MW, OC PDL after the Met police and Mccanns tell you 'the place is absolutely crawling with, child abducting burglars, gypsies, paedos' etc?

And STILL MW have not commented on possible 'reputational damage' to their 'image' of family friendly resort at PDL.

Weird, innit?

I'd certainly think twice about taking young kids to Portugal and leaving them unattended in an unlocked apt off the grounds of the resort, having been warned it was not safe - although I would not be doing that in the first place, in any country or in  my own home dining in the neighbor's garden etc with a pack of toddlers left home.

I am sure though that some folks will avoid this just because better to be safe than sorry - certainly did not help the reputation of Ocean club although there AGAIN, it was not from their crèche that the child disappeared, nor while being watched by one of their babysitters. Her disappearance happened under the parents' watch and they were duly warned - as if that should be necessary! - that this was an unsafe practice and the resort itself for that reason did not provide baby listening service.

The idea that you would hear that information - and then use it to get cute and negotiate a discount and demand your meal to be brought to a closer bar, rather than change your child care arrangements, beggars belief.

They knew best how to manage everything to their own advantage. Now they have expensive lawyers and will try to manage this to their advantage as well but I think it's about time someone told them to shut up and sit down. There are now TWO investigations going on, both at taxpayers' expense, it is time for them to stop trying for the limelight and someone else to blame.

matthew wrote:I don't think the McCanns can drop the case, Widowan...believe all parties must agree to any out of court settlement?


 

Matthew they tried to do a deal with Amaral a year ago but he was having none of it. I think the McCanns were urged to do it by their Lawyers because their case was not sound and the investigation was due to take place which might have found fresh evidence.I don't know if the protaganists have to give evidence, I thought the 7th January was meant to be the closing date.....no indication that they would be in the Witness box.

matthew wrote:I don't think the McCanns can drop the case, Widowan...believe all parties must agree to any out of court settlement?


 

I think McCanns could admit defeat and concede the case, though I imagine they would be made liable for all costs.
Would also be very bad PR for them.

matthew wrote:I don't think the McCanns can drop the case, Widowan...believe all parties must agree to any out of court settlement?


 

That I think they will not do or at least Amaral would not do, he has waited for his day in court.

In any other situation I would say that he is a shoo in to win, but the way people dance to the McTune you do wonder whether the pressure to agree with them and their powerful supporters, will take precedence with this judge.

I did not see McCanns being defamed in a way that would cause me to find for them in this, because his book was reporting the investigation with his own perspective on there, and while I am sure it is embarrassing to them, no more so than the PJ files that are public. The reason they are social pariahs if they are is not because of his book it's because of their attitude of running from responsibility and putting themselves first and being so self entitled at the same time leaving 3 under age 4 to fend for themselves and protect the unlocked apt from pedophiles child snatchers and burglars!

The Judge was due to rule on their application to be "heard" in court. Did she give her decision yet, or might that be on the horizon ?

mossman wrote:The Judge was due to rule on their application to be "heard" in court.  Did she give her decision yet, or might that be on the horizon ?

Your guess is as good as mine, I think this is a wait and see Trial , as far as I remember the 7th Frbruary was a closing date, so I doubt the McCanns would be allowed to defend their case because then Amaral would demand the same consideration and the summing up and decision would take a second day. It is a strange legal issue though that neither the Plaintiff or Defendant are allowed to state their case.
Has the Judge asked for medical reports on the claim that the Book affected their Health? I don't remember much evidence being asked for to be honest.

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:Hi Panda, FJ is Justice Forum   

Thanks wjk, is this the same Forum that mossman said earlier has given a new date for the Trial.?

Yep   

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:Hi Panda, FJ is Justice Forum   

Thanks wjk, is this the same Forum that mossman said earlier has given a new date for the Trial.?

Yep   

If there are any more hitches to this Trial wjk, I think I will join a Nunnery for a year, no phones, no TV, no Newspapers , a vow of silence, bliss.  

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:Hi Panda, FJ is Justice Forum   

Thanks wjk, is this the same Forum that mossman said earlier has given a new date for the Trial.?

Yep   

If there are any more hitches to this Trial wjk, I think I will join a Nunnery for a year, no phones, no TV, no Newspapers , a vow of silence, bliss.  

Ah, but you'd miss us too much, Panda,
You'd soon be back   

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:Hi Panda, FJ is Justice Forum   

Thanks wjk, is this the same Forum that mossman said earlier has given a new date for the Trial.?

Yep   

If there are any more hitches to this Trial wjk, I think I will join a Nunnery for a year, no phones, no TV, no Newspapers , a vow of silence, bliss.  

Ah, but you'd miss us too much, Panda,
You'd soon be back   

 
Yeah wjk, i would miss the Forum, but not the McCanns ...I don't want to start another thread for this but it is interesting. I was just browsing mccanfiles to see if the new trial date had been confirmed, started reading the Trial
Transcripts .......what is the glaring error on this Report:-
 
 
12 September 2013
With thanks to Joana Morais for transcript/translation
 
TV anchor: It started today the trial that opposes the McCann couple against Gonçalo Amaral. Kate McCann is present at the trial. Maddie's parents accuse the former Judiciary Police inspector of defamatory statements and guarantee that Gonçalo Amaral has harmed Madeleine's searches. The McCann family asks for 1,2 million euros of compensation, Gonçalo Amaral's assets were also seized, who published the book "A Verdade da Mentira" where statements were made regarding the disappearance of the child which the McCanns allege to have hindered the family's image and the investigations. The lawyer for the McCann family expects a speedy trial.
 
Isabel Duarte: [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon] The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... And as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]
 
Journalist: [in situ] In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?
 
Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.
 
Journalist: How much?
 
Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are five.
 
Anyone can answer. 

mossman wrote:The Judge was due to rule on their application to be "heard" in court.  Did she give her decision yet, or might that be on the horizon ?

I was just saying to wjk that I had checked out mccannfiles, nothing new.

Iv'e just been to the shops because it looks like rain and expected a couple of answers to my query about the glaring error in the Isobel Duarte comment regarding the amount the McCanns are claiming , thought someone might have guessed right.

O.K., I'll tell you:-


Journalist: [in situ] In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are five.

The McCanns can only claim for the twins, they tried to claim for Madeleine but when it was pointed out that Madeleine is a Ward of Court and missing they had to remove her from the claim which is why they sequestered E1 million.

Duarte, as their Lawyer should have been aware of this .!!!

On twitter 1.UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 7 hrs
#McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral & Others libel trial to resume in Lisbon next week. Judge in meantime bombarded with questions from both parties.
Details Expand Collapse

Karen wrote:On twitter 1.UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 7 hrs
#McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral & Others libel trial to resume in Lisbon next week. Judge in meantime bombarded with questions from both parties.
          Details Expand Collapse

Thanks Karen, it looks as though a resumption of the Trial is iminent then , since the McCanns and Amaral will not be allowed to speak I assume it is the closing day so the Judge's decision will soon be known .