The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by tiny on 22.01.15 17:05

@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Joss on 22.01.15 17:12

@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
I actually hope GA will have his own litigation against the McC's for damages in the near future.

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Daryl Dixon on 22.01.15 17:17

@tiny wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny


Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Joss on 22.01.15 17:25

@Daryl Dixon wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny


Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.
So they wouldn't feel any of those things just because their daughter was missing then, but because Amaral wrote a book about the investigation and to preserve the integrity of his name against vicious claims made against him. I call BS on the McC's BS, and i hope the judge sees right through them.

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Montclair on 22.01.15 17:48

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:Why would the McCann's get any monetary compensation at all? They have not proven their case against Goncalo Amaral. And i certainly don't think the Judge will rule against the initial ruling about the book seeing the verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, why would she? Even if she wanted to, i don't think it is possible. There is no case from what i read. The McC's could just as well say all the so called internet trolls have caused them distress as well. Are they going to sue all of them as well, seeing as the info is in the public domain? And what about some of the other docos that are out in cyberspace that go against the McC's version of what happened to Madeleine, is that causing them problems too?
They don't have to prove their case against Amaral, the shelving of the PJ case and the various closed/on-going investigations since the shelving are enough for that. Additional distress and defamation is easy to prove based on number of 'views' of the book/DVD and the increase in anti-McCann comments seen since the publishing. However, the exactly amount of additional distress (i.e the value of the compensation) is almost impossible to quantify. If they get a tiny payout, they will appeal, if it's big they'll smile and walk away.

I agree, the book will not be banned, even if they do win a payout, as the theory is neither proven or dis-proven (i.e there are on-going investigations)

re the bit in bold... they cannot do this as they have publicly stated that they actively avoid going on twitter and facebook to avoid the trolls. As such, it would get thrown out of court at the first hurdle.

Also, internet trolls don't profit from hate messages, therefore there is no incentive for the McCanns to go after them. 

re other stuff on the internet e.g Richard Halls documentary.... he has stated it's free, therefore no prospect of compo from him to the McCanns, so it would be a 100% cost to them to get this removed. I think they are nearly out of money now so until they get the next payout, these will be lower down the list of priorities.

With the Amaral case, they are basically stating that he has  has defamed their character based on unproven information, which is at this point in time, true. Not only that, but there is proof he has profited from doing so which means he also has the means to compensate them for this defamation.
In Portugal, the plaintiffs, the McCanns, have to prove their case against Gonçalo Amaral and they have been unable to do so. So, I am completely baffled by some here stating that the couple will win. Perhaps you better tell the defense lawyers that because it seems that they are optimistic about the outcome of this case. I think that they would know more than any of you.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by tiny on 22.01.15 17:54

@Daryl Dixon wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny


Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal


I thought this  bit came with 13

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Montclair on 22.01.15 17:57

@tiny wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny


Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal


I thought this  bit came with 13
Yes, that bit does come with the question no. 13.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by tiny on 22.01.15 18:17

Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Daryl Dixon on 22.01.15 18:43

@tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by tiny on 22.01.15 18:55

@Daryl Dixon wrote:
@tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.
I believe the judge did say this, if it was Anne Guedes or Astro who translated this then I can see no reason why they would lie,so I will take their word
that this is a true translation.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by aiyoyo on 22.01.15 19:10

@Montclair wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:Why would the McCann's get any monetary compensation at all? They have not proven their case against Goncalo Amaral. And i certainly don't think the Judge will rule against the initial ruling about the book seeing the verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, why would she? Even if she wanted to, i don't think it is possible. There is no case from what i read. The McC's could just as well say all the so called internet trolls have caused them distress as well. Are they going to sue all of them as well, seeing as the info is in the public domain? And what about some of the other docos that are out in cyberspace that go against the McC's version of what happened to Madeleine, is that causing them problems too?
They don't have to prove their case against Amaral, the shelving of the PJ case and the various closed/on-going investigations since the shelving are enough for that. Additional distress and defamation is easy to prove based on number of 'views' of the book/DVD and the increase in anti-McCann comments seen since the publishing. However, the exactly amount of additional distress (i.e the value of the compensation) is almost impossible to quantify. If they get a tiny payout, they will appeal, if it's big they'll smile and walk away.

I agree, the book will not be banned, even if they do win a payout, as the theory is neither proven or dis-proven (i.e there are on-going investigations)

re the bit in bold... they cannot do this as they have publicly stated that they actively avoid going on twitter and facebook to avoid the trolls. As such, it would get thrown out of court at the first hurdle.

Also, internet trolls don't profit from hate messages, therefore there is no incentive for the McCanns to go after them. 

re other stuff on the internet e.g Richard Halls documentary.... he has stated it's free, therefore no prospect of compo from him to the McCanns, so it would be a 100% cost to them to get this removed. I think they are nearly out of money now so until they get the next payout, these will be lower down the list of priorities.

With the Amaral case, they are basically stating that he has  has defamed their character based on unproven information, which is at this point in time, true. Not only that, but there is proof he has profited from doing so which means he also has the means to compensate them for this defamation.
In Portugal, the plaintiffs, the McCanns, have to prove their case against Gonçalo Amaral and they have been unable to do so. So, I am completely baffled by some here stating that the couple will win. Perhaps you better tell the defense lawyers that because it seems that they are optimistic about the outcome of this case. I think that they would know more than any of you.

Yeap, in Portugal if you alleged it then you have to prove it. And in this respect the Mcs failed miserably.

You are not going to convince the pros that are in denial that the Mcs' train has derailed.

By all accounts, no matter how one reads the facts sheet - the proved vs unproved - it is lopsided with the Defence side on the top end.

This isn't even about Amaral's right to freedom of expression since the 2nd instance Court has taken care of that when it overturns the injunction and subsequent appeal rejected. That issue was already put to bed. I can't see how the Defence Team won't win this, otherwise how is another Court going to reverse the 2nd instance Court's definitive decision that is irreversible. It's impossible for the 'damages' case to result in a verdict that contradicts book unbanned.

The verdict has to reconcile with the no restriction on the release and sale of the book. It's clear there can only one inevitable verdict ie VICTORY to Defence side.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Montclair on 22.01.15 20:09

@Daryl Dixon wrote:
@tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.
Sorry Darryl, that is exactly what the judge wrote in her document which she gave to the lawyers to read. Why would you believe that the person who did the translation would add something that wasn't there?

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by ultimaThule on 22.01.15 20:32

The words straws, at, and clutching come to mind, Montclair.

If, as Daryl Dixon suggests, the McCanns are in line for an immense payout, I would have thought that in order to fulfil their hope, as reported in the Daily Express today, that a verdict will be handed down next month, they will submit the relevant documents relating to the Wardship or make it clear to the Court that they are not authorised to represent Madeleine in the action no later than tomorrow.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

Post by Daryl Dixon on 22.01.15 20:46

@ultimaThule wrote:The words straws, at, and clutching come to mind, Montclair.    

If, as Daryl Dixon suggests, the McCanns are in line for an immense payout, I would have thought that in order to fulfil their hope, as reported in the Daily Express today, that a verdict will be handed down next month, they will submit the relevant documents relating to the Wardship or make it clear to the Court that they are not authorised to represent Madeleine in the action no later than tomorrow.
Why would you think that I have any reason to 'clutch at straws' with regard to what happens to the McCanns, ultimaThule?

And where have I suggested that the McCanns are in line for an 'immense' payout?

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum