Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 17:16

Hare wrote:In my experience, people often tend to make wildly inflated financial claims, in the hope that any settlement will be higher than if they made a reasonable claim. Courts will accept the submission of the craziest of claims. If they where to win, it'll be hard to justify 1.2 million euro's, but crazier things have happened.

My understanding is that Portugese courts tend not to make large libel payouts, payments tend to be restricted to a few tens of thousands.

I also thought that the McCann's strategy would be a) seek temporary injunction in Portugal, b) libel trial in portugal, c) permenant injunction against the book in uk, using the portugese decision as a precedant, d) libel trial in UK on the basis that they'd certainly win, and the potential payout will be worth the risk.

A libel solicitor was discussing this ridiculous case of the scientist whose being sued by the British association of Chiropractors for an article he wrote in the Guardian, and he made the comment that in the UK a brain dead corpse could represent clients in a libel trial, and win. He quoted win rates of over 98% of the cases that result

in a trial, its almost impossible to lose, and these charges are almost impossible to defend.

Hare,

Don"t forget the McCanns are taking Legal action against TV! in Portugal who would have much more money
tp defend the charge which really is petty.........TV1 supposedly discussed the Book/DVD on air. Since only the
Portugese would have understood the language, was it that libellous? TV1 have more money to defend their action.

They may be having second thoughts about their strategy given the negative press attention that they recieved in Portugal, they also know, that if a similar event was to occur in the UK, that the situation could be much woorse, but these feelings will pass. Its a high stakes poker game, and unfortunately at this moment, Amaral is the weakest player at the table, simply because he has limited financial support. A positive result against Amaral would be a very useful tool in their continued fight, because at some point, a bigger and stronger opponent is going to come along, a previous court ruling would be an extremely useful card to be able to play.

The McCann's biggest fear must be that a major newspaper group starts publishing information that they undoubtadly have. If the McCann's wont take action to silence Amaral, then this sends out a signal to the newspapers that the McCann's are unlikely to put up a fight against their superior fire power. At the point, the games over.

No way will they recieve 1.2 million from a Portugese court, but before this thing is resolved, they may well see a British court awarding damages of that magnitude in their favour. It may seam unfair, but I suspect as a consequence Dr Amaral will finally earn 10 times the amount he loses.

jinvta Mon 22 Feb - 17:35

I am beginning to think that I am too optimitstic on this issue and can only see what I want to see. I still absolutely cannot see how what Amaral states in his book can be considered libel. Here is another quote from http://www.personal-injury-info.net/libel-definition.htm:

"As one can see, the legal definition of libel revolves around the maliciousness of the act and the harm it has causes. The act of libel, according to the law, has to be in written or visual form such as an article or photograph and has to somehow damage the reputation of a person or business in some way where the courts are the natural place to resolve the claims.

In a libel case, the hardest part is trying to interpret the intent of the defendant. If someone's intent was clearly malicious, then a libel case has a good chance of succeeding.

The best defense in any libel case is "truth" as this element is thought to be something that mutual excludes libel. The concept of "truth" is different from "fact" so it is important to consult and attorney for the specifics."

The book only restates what is already in the case files and in the public domain. Amaral clearly does not state that the McCanns hid the cadaver (opinion), only that this was one of Amaral and his colleagues' conclusions (truth). Expressing the truth, as stated above, mutually excludes libel.

Further, Amaral specifically states in his forward his intentions for publishing the book:

"Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.

However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.

In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the judiciary police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.

The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."

Amaral clearly states that the purpose of the book is to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case". Nothing malicious there. His need to defend his reputation is also fair and easily proven through the multiitude of attacks on him in the British papers.

Even if Amaral's book is considered to be malicious and the book is not considered to be truthful, one still has to prove that the book was damaging to the reputation of the McCanns. Had they lost their jobs and became unemployable then maybe damages could be proven, but this does not appear to be the case. How have the McCanns suffered financially due to the publishing of the book in Portugal? What is there in the book that was not readily accessible through the case files, many of which were posted online before the book even came out?

As I understand in the UK the burden of proof for libel is extremely low and that most plaintiffs win. I don't believe this to be the case for most other nations.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 18:41

Will they get their £1.2 million. - Page 3 306321

jinvta

Because the McCanns are claiming Madeleine is alive, it is very hard to prove she is dead. I read a while
ago that the Portugese Prosecutor asked a Judge if, with the evidence they had, there was sufficient to
charge the McCanns. The Judge replied "show me the body." Ergo, neither party can prove their belief, so we
come to the PJ Report where 4 scenarios are given:-

1. Madeleine wandered out of the Apartment and met with an accident......no body found.
2. Madeleine was abducted.......no evidence of a break in to apartment 5a
3. Madeleine is alive but despite a Worldwide search her whereabouts are still unknown.
4. Madeleine met with an accidental death in 5a.

PJ Opinion.........Madeleine is probably dead.

Lizzy11268 Mon 22 Feb - 18:58

I seem to remember something about the fact that it is because the SECOND set of detectives (IE the ones who took over the case when Amaral was removed) did not, apparently, come to the same conclusion as Amaral's team.

There was something in the very little bit we got of the judges summing up about it - this was partly why the injunction was upheld. Allegedly, it is possible the injunction would NOT have been upheld if the second team had concluded the same as the first team.

Which is why The Mccann's speak highly of the second team, no doubt. Will they get their £1.2 million. - Page 3 23324

Will they get their £1.2 million. - Page 3 23324

**T4two** Mon 22 Feb - 19:10

The fact is that if the original release of police information implicating the parents in the crime of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction is a violation of the McCanns' human rights and in itself a libel, unless it can be proven to be true, and therefore not a libel, there is no way that the McCanns can lose against Dr. Amaral and the co-defendants, even if it goes to the European court.

The McCanns would then be well placed to sue the Portuguese state. The only thing which can thwart this strategy is if the case is solved in the meantime, say by one of the Tapas pals cracking under pressure. That is why it is so important for Dr. Amaral that he force the McCanns to take the witness stand where they would be faced with the necessity of perjuring themselves, and why the McCanns and their lawyer do everything possible to stop that happening.

Again, not the behaviour one would expect from innocent people seeking to defend their reputations.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 20:13

T4two wrote:The fact is that if the original release of police information implicating the parents in the crime of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction is a violation of the McCanns' human rights and in itself a libel, unless it can be proven to be true, and therefore not a libel, there is no way that the McCanns can lose against Dr. Amaral and the co-defendants, even if it goes to the European court.

The McCanns would then be well placed to sue the Portuguese state. The only thing which can thwart this strategy is if the case is solved in the meantime, say by one of the Tapas pals cracking under pressure. That is why it is so important for Dr. Amaral that he force the McCanns to take the witness stand where they would be faced with the necessity of perjuring themselves, and why the McCanns and their lawyer do everything possible to stop that happening.

Again, not the behaviour one would expect from innocent people seeking to defend their reputations.

T4two

I seem to remember someone saying that the Judge at the Hearing commented on why it had taken so long
for the McCanns to complain and sue for Libel. Apparently, Amaral"s book was published in July? 08 but the
McCanns waited several months before applying for the injunction.

Lizzy11268 Mon 22 Feb - 20:20

Beattie wrote:
T4two wrote:The fact is that if the original release of police information implicating the parents in the crime of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction is a violation of the McCanns' human rights and in itself a libel, unless it can be proven to be true, and therefore not a libel, there is no way that the McCanns can lose against Dr. Amaral and the co-defendants, even if it goes to the European court.

The McCanns would then be well placed to sue the Portuguese state. The only thing which can thwart this strategy is if the case is solved in the meantime, say by one of the Tapas pals cracking under pressure. That is why it is so important for Dr. Amaral that he force the McCanns to take the witness stand where they would be faced with the necessity of perjuring themselves, and why the McCanns and their lawyer do everything possible to stop that happening.

Again, not the behaviour one would expect from innocent people seeking to defend their reputations.

T4two

I seem to remember someone saying that the Judge at the Hearing commented on why it had taken so long
for the McCanns to complain and sue for Libel. Apparently, Amaral"s book was published in July? 08 but the
McCanns waited several months before applying for the injunction.

He didnt have any money to sue for in July 08 though did he? Assume I'm rolling my eyes right now.

Will they get their £1.2 million. - Page 3 294124

**T4two** Mon 22 Feb - 20:29

Beattie

Lizzie

Indeed! Your point about the judge's remarks about waiting so long before suing is an important indication that the judge will not be awarding the kind of damages that the McCanns are seeking simply because there is an onus on the plaintiffs to do everything possible to limit the damage that is done and importantly, to be seen to be doing it. This is obviously not the case here.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 20:36

T4two wrote: Beattie Lizzie

Indeed! Your point about the judge's remarks about waiting so long before suing is an important indication that the judge will not be awarding the kind of damages that the McCanns are seeking simply because there is an onus on the plaintiffs to do everything possible to limit the damage that is done and importantly, to be seen to be doing it. This is obviously not the case here.

Lizzie is right, when the McCanns realised how much Amaral had made , they wanted a share and 1.2 million
Euros sounded about rightLOL

**LJC** Mon 22 Feb - 20:54

Would it not have been easier to try to sue him for slander? Surely he spoke about his opinions before he wrote about them? Why didn't they take action then?

**LJC** Mon 22 Feb - 21:00

Definition: -

"The most significant difference between libel and slander is that someone who wants to bring proceedings for libel does not need to show that they have suffered any loss or damage. By contrast, someone who wants to bring proceedings for slander would need to show that they have suffered actual loss".

Am I correct in saying that the McCann's went for libel because they cannot show that they have suffered/damage loss i.e. harm to the search for Madeleine?

**MaryB** Mon 22 Feb - 21:33

Doesn't libel have to be lies. And if that is what the investigation thought. It might be wrong but I don't see how it can be lies.

**T4two** Mon 22 Feb - 21:35

Beattie wrote:
T4two wrote: Beattie Lizzie

Indeed! Your point about the judge's remarks about waiting so long before suing is an important indication that the judge will not be awarding the kind of damages that the McCanns are seeking simply because there is an onus on the plaintiffs to do everything possible to limit the damage that is done and importantly, to be seen to be doing it. This is obviously not the case here.

Lizzie is right, when the McCanns realised how much Amaral had made , they wanted a share and 1.2 million
Euros sounded about rightLOL

That is the impression which has been universally generated. In fact the judge also made a point of having the McCanns' rejection of the offer to air their documentary on the same station as Amaral's recorded as part of the process, because this is also a demonstrable failure by the plaintiffs to do everything possible to limit the damage they assert has been caused by the book and the documentary.

Sponsored content