Amaral V McCann trial

I read the comments on the Daily Mail and I think out of 10 only 2 or 3 were supportive of the parents.

How did you manage that? I clicked on them,but article came up without comments.. I was able to view all the comments on the other stories for example the latest Knox one.

Carolina wrote:I read the comments on the Daily Mail and I think out of 10 only 2 or 3 were supportive of the parents.

Good! We "normals" are not damn stupid!

Right, I finally managed to view them and there wasn't a really pro-McCann comment on there. Not many comments compared to on other issues, but the piece is way down the page and I think most people are tired of the whole charade.

Duncanmac,
hello, do you think that now, in Portugal, during the hearing, facts of the case will become public?

I hope so!
It would be a great opportunity.[/quote]

I am hoping that GA witnessess will drop a bombshell or two. I am not a legal person but am I right in saying it cannot be defamation if mention in a court of law.

I also hope that Dr. Amaral will drop a bombshell.
If they only LET HIM.

For me his book and the files are explosive enough.

Don't know if this is anywhere else but did anyone see the Robert Murat clip on Sky News this morning about 11.15am. The cover of Sr Amaral's book was also shown; I was on the phone so couldn't hear the commentary. Dipped in and out since and not seen any reference to the Mc's or Murat since.

duncanmac wrote:Duncanmac,
hello, do you think that now, in Portugal, during the hearing, facts of the case will become public?

I hope so!
It would be a great opportunity.

I am hoping that GA witnessess will drop a bombshell or two. I am not a legal person but am I right in saying it cannot be defamation if mention in a court of law.[/quote]

You are quite right, witness testimony is subject to the basic principle of "absolute privilege" which means that the witness is exepmt from charges of defamation for anything that he says in court, and this principe applies to all jurisdictions.

However, this does not mean that he has carte blanche to say what he likes. Testimony is given under oath or condition, and that means that the witness is bound to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Tis applies to the plaintiff and the defendant and any witnessess appearing for them.

comment about the report in the Daily Mail.

This is NOT the launch of the McCanns libel action against Goncalo Amaral. It is a hearing at which Goncalo Amaral, through his solicitor, will present his opposition to the interim decision - made by a judge, in September - to seize his assets and prevent him from speaking publicly about 'his' thesis.

The libel action, in which the McCanns are demanding over 1 million euros, will not take place until next year.

They are two separate events.

Clarence Mitchell has, not for the first time, given a completely misleading and wholly untrue quote in this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234603/Kate-Gerry-McCann-fly-Portugal-trial-police-officer-involved-search-Madeleine.html#comments

Annabel wrote:comment about the report in the Daily Mail.

This is NOT the launch of the McCanns libel action against Goncalo Amaral. It is a hearing at which Goncalo Amaral, through his solicitor, will present his opposition to the interim decision - made by a judge, in September - to seize his assets and prevent him from speaking publicly about 'his' thesis.

The libel action, in which the McCanns are demanding over 1 million euros, will not take place until next year.

They are two separate events.

Clarence Mitchell has, not for the first time, given a completely misleading and wholly untrue quote in this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234603/Kate-Gerry-McCann-fly-Portugal-trial-police-officer-involved-search-Madeleine.html#comments

Hi Annabel,
yes, they are two separate things.
But have the libel allegations nothing to do with truth or not truth?
To write lies is not okay. The judge must test if there are lies written in the book.
Or not?
If the McCanns state Amaral libels them there MUST be a closer look into the files I assume.

Somehow both issues cohere.

fedrules wrote:I had one published just after the McCanns were named 'arguidos' on the Telegraph website. The theme of the article was if Portugal's treatment of the McCanns had put you off going on holiday there. I distinctly remember that the overwhelming majority were negative regarding the medical duo. I have posted comments to the Mail, perfectly polite and reasonable, but have never had one published. I am convinced that there are far more questioning comments received than the ones sent by those who fail to admit that Maddie may not have been abducted. But the UK's draconian libel laws mean the press cannot publish them.

The Mail has never published any of mine about the McCann case, either, even though they did publish one comment I made about a fashion article, sent a couple of minutes after I posted a comment on the McCanns! I too always kept my comments polite and factual, in no way libellous, but I was usually asking a question about something. Obviously we, the public, are not supposed to question anything!!!

By the way, Clarence Mitchell is such a bully, isn't he? He looks pugnacious and everything he says is done in a bullying, threatening, "do what we tell you" tone. I have no doubt that there is some agreement whereby the media has to publicise whatever he tells them to, and I'm sure many TV presenters and journalists do not believe the McCanns and resent having to do it. The McCanns don't have the support they arrogantly think they do, and that is probably why Clarrie tries to bully people into believing them. One day the truth will be revealed. Fingers crossed, for Madeleine, that it will be soon.

Catalina, I hope very much that they are "touchable".

For the Portuguese judge to have granted an injunction, and sequested assets, she must have been satisfied that there was a good chance of a libel case being successful. To hold a pre trial hearing to determine whether or not that is to hold would be pointless - and damaging to any subsequent trial. Therefore however it is dressed up this is the start of the trial. It may be a long drawn out affair or quite quick. We will know in a few days time.

Lilemore. I note your comment about amaral or another witness "dropping a bombshell" during the trial. By this I take it you mean producing some previously unknown evidence or document that proves the veracity of their case. Don't hold your breath, I'm afraid. Both sides must provide the other with deatils of evidence to be produced.

Sans souci, thanks.

What about the judge? If Dr. Amaral believes that the judge is (or has been, more or less deliberately) biased?
Could he demand another judge?
Is it possible that corruption is underway?
Imo it should definitely be possible to demand up to three judges.
And a jury.
Why not?
It is too easy to play god for only one singe judge.

Beattie wrote:I really can"t understand why the McCanns continue with their claim that Madeleine is still alive when the
World searched for her and a £1.5 million Reward did not tempt anyone to come forward with information.
Obviously, if they admit that Madeleine may be dead, the Fund is a Fraud but until such time as Madeliene"s
body is found both sides are at an impasse.

Amaral"s evidence that Madeleine was not abducted is far more plausible and I hope if this case goes to Trial,
the Judges and Jury will see common sense .

A three year old child disappears. Would not most experienced police officers think it highly unlikely if not impossible that this child should turn up over two years later alive and well. Most police officers with a grain of sense would think the child sadly was dead. And yet Mr Amaral is to be prosecuted for thinking this. It is beyond madness.

MaryB

Too true!!! Which begs the question, why was the Portugese injunction by one Judge to sieze Amaral"s Assets
and ban the sale of the Book and DVD, not just in the U.K. for one month without Amaral being allowed to defend his theories.? I also read that the McCann Lawyers had siezed thousands of copies of the Book, surely this can"t be right!!!

Beattie wrote:MaryB

Too true!!! Which begs the question, why was the Portugese injunction by one Judge to sieze Amaral"s Assets
and ban the sale of the Book and DVD, not just in the U.K. for one month without Amaral being allowed to defend his theories.? I also read that the McCann Lawyers had siezed thousands of copies of the Book, surely this can"t be right!!!

No! That can not be right!

But what can Dr. Amaral do when there is corruption involved?

Is there an instance above the Portuguese system in Europe which could have a neutral look on the whole issue and is MORE POWERFULL than the Ministers from Portugal???

Lilemor wrote:Sans souci, thanks.

What about the judge? If Dr. Amaral believes that the judge is (or has been, more or less deliberately) biased?
Could he demand another judge?
Is it possible that corruption is underway?
Imo it should definitely be possible to demand up to three judges.
And a jury.
Why not?
It is too easy to play god for only one singe judge.

I agree with you about tha. To accuse a judge of bias would be a big step, and would require more proof than merely disagreeing with the result.

I think it is very unlikely that corruption is underway. What makes you suspect that? Apart from disagreement with the result. Injunctions are frenquently used as a device to prevent or limit damage before a full trial can take place, so I do not see what all the fuss about "gags" is.

I do not know the system in Portugal, but I beleive it is likely the trial will be a bench trial with three judges. I believe jury trails are an option in serious cases, but usually where an individuals liberty is at stake.

Lilemor wrote:Sans souci, thanks.

What about the judge? If Dr. Amaral believes that the judge is (or has been, more or less deliberately) biased?
Could he demand another judge?
Is it possible that corruption is underway?
Imo it should definitely be possible to demand up to three judges.
And a jury.
Why not?
It is too easy to play god for only one singe judge.

I agree with you about tha. To accuse a judge of bias would be a big step, and would require more proof than merely disagreeing with the result.

I think it is very unlikely that corruption is underway. What makes you suspect that? Apart from disagreement with the result. Injunctions are frenquently used as a device to prevent or limit damage before a full trial can take place, so I do not see what all the fuss about "gags" is.

I do not know the system in Portugal, but I beleive it is likely the trial will be a bench trial with three judges. I believe jury trails are an option in serious cases, but usually where an individuals liberty is at stake.

Lilemor

I think Amaral can appeal to the Human Rights Commission, but the ban was only for one month, so now at the
hearing he has the right to defend his theories and bring in Witnesses. What evidence can the McCanns produce to p;rove their daughter is still alive?

Lilemor wrote:Sans souci, thanks.

What about the judge? If Dr. Amaral believes that the judge is (or has been, more or less deliberately) biased?
Could he demand another judge?
Is it possible that corruption is underway?
Imo it should definitely be possible to demand up to three judges.
And a jury.
Why not?
It is too easy to play god for only one singe judge.

I agree with you about tha. To accuse a judge of bias would be a big step, and would require more proof than merely disagreeing with the result.

I think it is very unlikely that corruption is underway. What makes you suspect that? Apart from disagreement with the result. Injunctions are frenquently used as a device to prevent or limit damage before a full trial can take place, so I do not see what all the fuss about "gags" is.

I do not know the system in Portugal, but I beleive it is likely the trial will be a bench trial with three judges. I believe jury trails are an option in serious cases, but usually where an individuals liberty is at stake.

Beattie,

Wasn't part of the injunction order that all unsold copies of the book had to be handed over to the McCanns' lawyers? This whole thing is just so completely and utterly WRONG! The McCanns must have been advised that they stand a good chance of winning their case, or I'm sure they wouldn't be continuing with it. They wouldn't be able to face the idea of losing. Unfortunately, they don't have to prove their allegations about the damage the book has caused them, Amaral has to prove their allegations wrong, which is much more difficult. Still, presumably he too has been advised of the strength of his case, so we can only wait and see. I find some consolation in the fact that, even if the McCanns do win the case in the end, they will have lost support. A lot of people are finding their obvious money-grabbing dealings and their spite (wrapped up as their distress over people hampering the search for Madeleine, of course) surprising and revealing. However, let's think positive. Good luck tomorrow, Gonçalo!

sans_souci wrote:

Lilemor wrote:Sans souci, thanks.

What about the judge? If Dr. Amaral believes that the judge is (or has been, more or less deliberately) biased?
Could he demand another judge?
Is it possible that corruption is underway?
Imo it should definitely be possible to demand up to three judges.
And a jury.
Why not?
It is too easy to play god for only one singe judge.

I agree with you about tha. To accuse a judge of bias would be a big step, and would require more proof than merely disagreeing with the result.

I think it is very unlikely that corruption is underway. What makes you suspect that? Apart from disagreement with the result. Injunctions are frenquently used as a device to prevent or limit damage before a full trial can take place, so I do not see what all the fuss about "gags" is.

I do not know the system in Portugal, but I beleive it is likely the trial will be a bench trial with three judges. I believe jury trails are an option in serious cases, but usually where an individuals liberty is at stake.

Time goes by and all went well for the McCanns.
A stopped investigation, Browns involvement, all the refusals and and and...
I can not any longer believe in justice in the McCann case.
It must be a total corrupt system when Ministers can be free to decide not to continue the investigation into a little disappeared vulnerable child.
That is why I think all what has to do with and around the saintly couple from England has to do with lies, pressure, loads of money, wrongdoings, corruption and highly likely freemasonry..

Dr. Amaral can in no way accept that!

Catalina

I think the initial judgement that an injunction be taken out without Amaral being able to defend himself was
undemocratic. This hearing gives him a chance to defend his reasons and I sincerely hope his Lawyer will
challenge the McCanns claim on how it has affected the whole family. I can"t remember the exact wording, but it is definitely OTT and to include the children in their claim is disgraceful.
I just wonder whether the McCanns, as Plaintiffs will have to prove their belief that Madeleine is still alive. I
think under U.K. Libel Law, it is the Defendant who has to prove his case, maybe Portugal is different, perhaps
someone here can tell us.

Beattie wrote:Lilemor

I think Amaral can appeal to the Human Rights Commission, but the ban was only for one month, so now at the
hearing he has the right to defend his theories and bring in Witnesses. What evidence can the McCanns produce to p;rove their daughter is still alive?

So you think the next days must not inevitably be the end?