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

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 ultimaThule on 21.01.15 21:41

@fz2 wrote:[b]
< a very large snip >
There has been a dearth of silence since Tony posted this and Im not surprised.

As it's dinner time for some and supper time for others, I'm not surprised either, fz2.


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 Tony Bennett on 21.01.15 21:46

@plebgate wrote: Isabelle McFadden  @PORTUGALCDS
THE TRUTH about today's day in court. #mccann Media gets it Wrong pic.twitter.com/NyfOE0BrxK
The burden of the argument by Isabelle McFadden, quoting astro, is that the media were WRONG to quote Point 13 alone.

I agree with that - up to a point.

And that is that the media didn't also quote point 12.

But point 13 still stands. And it says:

QUOTE

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.


UNQUOTE

In plain English, and if the reporting from the court is accurate, this means that the judge is saying:

"What Goncalo Amaral said in his book, in a TV documentary, and in a Correia da Manhan interview, caused the McCanns...

1. permanent anguish,
2. insomnia,
3. lack of appetite,
4. anxiety
5. irritability,
6. preoccupation, and
7. indefinable fear.

This does NOT necssarily mean, as I understand it, that Amaral has 'lost' his case.

But there's no getting away from it.

Nor can we get away from this: (Point 28) "The judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat".

There are IMO things that both sides can draw from the 36 points today.

Maybe there will not be a clear-cut victory for either side? 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

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 21.01.15 21:47

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Well I'm VERY interested to know what the missing points were. IMO it seems to be coming down more on Amarals side from my reading, but it could all depend on the missing items. I certainly got the feeling that the judge was not impressed/interested in the McCann family/friends witness statements in the earlier hearing. I don't think either side will be popping corks just yet, but there may be a bit of "fury" reverberating  somewhere in Leicestershire tonight.

Main thing is the crux of the matter inter-alia 11, 12, 13 are "not proved" or "proved" with a qualifying statement from the Judge.  
Claim that search is hampered - not proved.
Claim of social isolation - not proved
Claim of depression etc - proved - natural, but pertinent point it was pre-existent before book and not caused by book.
So far so good there for Team Amaral.

The rest such as profits from book, availability of the English version on internet produced by outside party etc are all incidentals.

The thing that got my attention is the point read as "proven" factual - that the re-opening was not based on "new evidence".  What then, if not on new evidence?

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 ultimaThule on 21.01.15 21:58

That's an interesting one, aiyoyo.

The official line at the time was that "Portugal's attorney general said "new elements of evidence" justified the "continuation of the investigation", which was shelved by police in 2008" and the "Portuguese police said a review team had been working since March 2011 to look back through information from the original investigation - and this process had uncovered potential new lines of inquiry".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826

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 brixham on 21.01.15 22:00

Not 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?



OK so the judge said that this is proved but she then goes on to say that these were pre-existing conditions, made worse by the books publication. I therefore can't see how the Mcs can win as they have attributed all of the above solely, as far as this case is concerned, to the book. In effect the judge is dismissing this claim as it only partially correct, it surely needs to be 100% correct to win a case.

brixham

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-03

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 SuspiciousMinds on 21.01.15 22:06

So, in short, this is what has been proved, and what the case will be judged on:

Gonçalo Amaral made the statements that are attributed to him in the Correio da Manhã interview.

The editor set the selling price of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal at €13,33, including VAT.

Gonçalo Amaral earned 342.111,86 euro from the sales of the book in the years 2008 and 2009.

The DVD was sold for €6,95 euro with newspaper Correio da Manhã.

Gonçalo Amaral earned €40.000 from DVD sales in 2008.

The DVD has been edited and the edited copies have been sold by defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”
 


 At least two million and two hundred thousand people have watched the programme that was broadcast on 13.4.2009.


Kate and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear which existed prior to the book, documentary and interview, and was not caused by the book. But it’s unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect.
But how can the effect of the book etc. be quantified or proven, if those conditions already existed beforehand?



Kate and Gerald McCann feel badly (but not ashamed) about being considered responsible over the hiding of their daughter's body and simulating her abduction by those who believe in Mr Amaral's thesis. This is to be expected.
As confirmed by the judge later, the facts in the book come from the police investigation. People always feel bad when they are accused of crimes by the police. It's expected. Feeling bad about it doesn't constitute 'damage'. Does it...?



The couple feels the need to keep their younger children from finding out about said thesis.
Obviously - who wouldn't? But that's neither here nor there.


Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010 and have not learned about Mr Amaral's thesis yet.
So Sean and Amelie haven't been damaged yet, and presumably can't claim damages?


The case has been profoundly treated within the Portuguese and foreign society, whether by the media, or through books, like those authored by Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Manuel Catarino and Hernâni Carvalho?

The case was commented upon by Dr. Francisco Moita Flores, former inspector, writer, criminalist and commentator, in various media.

The facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such. The judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's "informal" recognition of Robert Murat. So the information in the book would mostly be available via the PJ files to anyone interested anyway, including the twins.

The documentary was reproduced, and even subtitled in the English language, by third parties that published it on the internet, without permission and against the will of the defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

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 plebgate on 21.01.15 22:09

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@plebgate wrote: Isabelle McFadden  @PORTUGALCDS
THE TRUTH about today's day in court. #mccann Media gets it Wrong pic.twitter.com/NyfOE0BrxK
The burden of the argument by Isabelle McFadden, quoting astro, is that the media were WRONG to quote Point 13 alone.

I agree with that - up to a point.

And that is that the media didn't also quote point 12.

But point 13 still stands. And it says:

QUOTE

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.


UNQUOTE

In plain English, and if the reporting from the court is accurate, this means that the judge is saying:

"What Goncalo Amaral said in his book, in a TV documentary, and in a Correia da Manhan interview, caused the McCanns...

1. permanent anguish,
2. insomnia,
3. lack of appetite,
4. anxiety
5. irritability,
6. preoccupation, and
7. indefinable fear.


This does NOT necssarily mean, as I understand it, that Amaral has 'lost' his case.

But there's no getting away from it.

Nor can we get away from this: (Point 28) "The judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat".


There are IMO things that both sides can draw from the 36 points today.

Maybe there will not be a clear-cut victory for either side? 
Re. Pink highlighting - mine - the judge reportedly went on to say along the lines that although the book did cause those feelings, this was normal.

This is what I was querying really.    By saying that these feelings are normal does it mean that they will not get a payout despite having these feelings?


Yellow highlighting - mine - (point 28) the judge is reported as using the word facts are not complete(in the book) and some facts in the book are not in the case files.  

What does the use of the word facts indicate?   Facts are facts whether they are not complete or not in the case files imo?

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

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 Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.15 22:13

I read this as the Judge recognising MUCH of what Amaral says is FACT and not scurrilous nonsense, as the McCanns would have us believe. The use of the word facts is significant IMO.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Off-set for a pre-existing condition

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.01.15 22:13

@brixham wrote:OK so the judge said that this is proved - but she then goes on to say that these were pre-existing conditions, made worse by the book's publication. I therefore can't see how the Mcs can win as they have attributed all of the above solely, as far as this case is concerned, to the book. In effect the judge is dismissing this claim as it only partially correct, it surely needs to be 100% correct to win a case.
An off-set for a pre-existing condition is a common feature of English law, especially in cases of industrial injury, personal injury and industrial disease.

For example:

"Carrying a heavy load caused the claimant to suffer acute back pain and chronic back pain for 1 years, so is awarded £xxx compensation, reduced by 50% because of pre-existing back problems caused by 15 years playing rugby when then claimant was younger".

Happens all the time in English law...but in Portuguese law?

I have no idea

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA:


Have found this article on the internet giving a practical example of an off-set for a pre-existing condition - an industrial accident case:

QUOTE

The claimant injured his right knee in an industrial accident on 5 February 1990. On 28 November 1990 he had an arthroscopic menisectomy of the right knee. He claimed disablement benefit on 15 April 1991. The adjudicating medical authority (AMA) on 15 May 1991 found the loss of faculty to be impaired movement with pain in the right knee joint and assessed the resulting disablement at 12% from 20 May 1990, with at least 1% disablement to continue for life. In reaching the figure of 12% the AMA [Adjudicating Medical Authority - T.B.] had started with a gross figure of 15% and applied an offset of 3% for pre-existing arthritis...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

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 Letterwriter on 21.01.15 22:14

What I'm interested in is not "Did the book upset the McCanns." 

Of course it would - true or not.

What will be interesting is whether Mr Amaral has the right to publish anyway.  Whether their upset is a "tort" demanding compensation or whether it is just one of those things a person has to deal with as someone else goes about their lawful business.

Letterwriter

Posts : 68
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-04-11

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 plebgate on 21.01.15 22:16

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:I read this as the Judge recognising MUCH of what Amaral says is FACT and not scurrilous nonsense, as the McCanns would have us believe. The use of the word facts is significant IMO.
Yes I agree - significant indeed Smokeandmirrors, imo too.

Rocky will be laughing again soon I do believe.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

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 Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.15 22:25

@plebgate wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:I read this as the Judge recognising MUCH of what Amaral says is FACT and not scurrilous nonsense, as the McCanns would have us believe. The use of the word facts is significant IMO.
Yes I agree - significant indeed Smokeandmirrors, imo too.

Rocky will be laughing again soon I do believe.
We obviously don't want to get our hopes up prematurely, but fingers crossed. 

If, and I mean IF the transcripts we have seen from previous court days is 100% accurate, I'd say the judge is no fool. She shoved the Ma Healy off saying she had nothing of interest/use to say or words very si,milar, she disallowed the McCanns to force themselves forwards when it was their wish to do so, there was the cringeworthy Wright episode with a crib sheet, and that woman who said she's seen the book for sale in England, which of course she hadn't, so it was all a bit cr@p from Team McCann - AND they had YEARS to prepare, so no excuse for their shabby performance IMO.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

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 SuspiciousMinds on 21.01.15 22:26

I want to know why the judge specifically used the example of Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat. Why is that particularly pertinent in this case when it involves neither of the McCanns directly, and doesn't appear to reflect on them personally?

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

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 plebgate on 21.01.15 22:30

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@plebgate wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:I read this as the Judge recognising MUCH of what Amaral says is FACT and not scurrilous nonsense, as the McCanns would have us believe. The use of the word facts is significant IMO.
Yes I agree - significant indeed Smokeandmirrors, imo too.

Rocky will be laughing again soon I do believe.
We obviously don't want to get our hopes up prematurely, but fingers crossed. 

If, and I mean IF the transcripts we have seen from previous court days is 100% accurate, I'd say the judge is no fool. She shoved the Ma Healy off saying she had nothing of interest/use to say or words very si,milar, she disallowed the McCanns to force themselves forwards when it was their wish to do so, there was the cringeworthy Wright episode with a crib sheet, and that woman who said she's seen the book for sale in England, which of course she hadn't, so it was all a bit cr@p from Team McCann - AND they had YEARS to prepare, so no excuse for their shabby performance IMO.
yeah thumbsup

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

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 Tony Bennett on 21.01.15 22:33

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:I want to know why the judge specifically used the example of Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat. Why is that particularly pertinent in this case when it involves neither of the McCanns directly, and doesn't appear to reflect on them personally?
I don't think it is pertinent EXCEPT that no doubt the McCanns made much in their pleadings to the court of every sentence they could find in Amaral's book that couldn't be strictly proved from the files.

Maybe finding nothing about the 'unofficial' identity parade in the files was just the clearest and biggest example.

Yet the fact that this incident actually happened is confirmed by Jane Tanner herself and by others; the only thing Tanner maintains is that she wasn't quite so insistent on the fact that it was Murat she'd seen on 3 May as Amaral maintains.

If I'm asked to choose Amaral's version or Tanner's...I choose Amaral's.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

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 Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.15 22:45

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:I want to know why the judge specifically used the example of Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat. Why is that particularly pertinent in this case when it involves neither of the McCanns directly, and doesn't appear to reflect on them personally?
I don't think it is pertinent EXCEPT that no doubt the McCanns made much in their pleadings to the court of every sentence they could find in Amaral's book that couldn't be strictly proved from the files.

Maybe finding nothing about the 'unofficial' identity parade in the files was just the clearest and biggest example.

Yet the fact that this incident actually happened is confirmed by Jane Tanner herself and by others; the only thing Tanner maintains is that she wasn't quite so insistent on the fact that it was Murat she'd seen on 3 May as Amaral maintains.

If I'm asked to choose Amaral's version or Tanner's...I choose Amaral's.
Did Tanner confirm it in the rogatories? I wonder how much of the files the Judge actually would have read herself, how familiar she is with the case in it's entirety? I imagine she's pretty aux fait with it and the press over there was a lot more robust in it's assertions than ours has been by all accounts.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

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 SuspiciousMinds on 21.01.15 22:50

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:I want to know why the judge specifically used the example of Jane Tanner's 'informal' recognition of Robert Murat. Why is that particularly pertinent in this case when it involves neither of the McCanns directly, and doesn't appear to reflect on them personally?
I don't think it is pertinent EXCEPT that no doubt the McCanns made much in their pleadings to the court of every sentence they could find in Amaral's book that couldn't be strictly proved from the files.

Maybe finding nothing about the 'unofficial' identity parade in the files was just the clearest and biggest example.

Yet the fact that this incident actually happened is confirmed by Jane Tanner herself and by others; the only thing Tanner maintains is that she wasn't quite so insistent on the fact that it was Murat she'd seen on 3 May as Amaral maintains.

If I'm asked to choose Amaral's version or Tanner's...I choose Amaral's.

But if that's the best example they could find... surely that backs up Amaral's case. They really couldn't find a single thing he wrote about the McCanns in his book that wasn't backed up by evidence in the police files? Wow. Well done Dr. Amaral! clapping

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

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 21.01.15 23:05

@Letterwriter wrote:What I'm interested in is not "Did the book upset the McCanns."

Of course it would - true or not.

What will be interesting is whether Mr Amaral has the right to publish anyway. Whether their upset is a "tort" demanding compensation or whether it is just one of those things a person has to deal with as someone else goes about their lawful business.

Going purely on what has emerged in the last 12 hours, and notwithstanding the fact that some of what has been reported may have become distorted in translation, the tort you've raised would appear to be the crux of the matter and will no doubt be addressed by counsels for both sides in their written submissions on points of law arising from the judge's determinations today, Letterwriter.

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 ultimaThule on 21.01.15 23:17

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@plebgate wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:I read this as the Judge recognising MUCH of what Amaral says is FACT and not scurrilous nonsense, as the McCanns would have us believe. The use of the word facts is significant IMO.
Yes I agree - significant indeed Smokeandmirrors, imo too.

Rocky will be laughing again soon I do believe.
We obviously don't want to get our hopes up prematurely, but fingers crossed. 

If, and I mean IF the transcripts we have seen from previous court days is 100% accurate, I'd say the judge is no fool. She shoved the Ma Healy off saying she had nothing of interest/use to say or words very si,milar, she disallowed the McCanns to force themselves forwards when it was their wish to do so, there was the cringeworthy Wright episode with a crib sheet, and that woman who said she's seen the book for sale in England, which of course she hadn't, so it was all a bit cr@p from Team McCann - AND they had YEARS to prepare, so no excuse for their shabby performance IMO.

Notwithstanding the episode of his crib sheet, during the cringeworthy testimony of Wright the judge stated that 'two facts were established':
1) 'The British dogs detected the scent of human and also that consistent with cadaver' and
2) 'These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns', Sandm  yes

Mrs   lol4

eta http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Michael_Wright_20_09_2014.htm

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 Christina on 21.01.15 23:43

This is fascinating. I've been watching off and on and didn't realise this was happening today. Have read the 36 points and yes, it looks as the immediate above comments have said. Dr Amaral's statements are nearly all taken as proven. It looks to me as though the McCanns will be using the appeal process from here to eternity...

A couple of points I'm not sure of:

14. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann feel a deep shame and an indescribable ill-being because they are considered, by most people who know the theories of defendant Gonçalo Amaral, as having responsibility in the death of their daughter, being so cowardly that they have hidden her cadaver, simulating abduction, all of this to avoid criminal accusations?

Proved that the couple felt badly about being considered responsible over the hiding of their daughter's body and simulating her abduction by those who believe in Mr Amaral's thesis.

The judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
She adds that the plaintiffs failed to prove shame, even with Kate stating it was not shame that she felt.
The judge once more believes it is expectable that the plaintiffs would feel badly about being considered to be responsible for hiding the body and staging an abduction - not, the judge stresses, about being responsible for their daughter's death, as is commonly, and mistakenly, believed.


The only wording in this I don't like is the penultimate word "mistakenly". "Perhaps mistakenly" or something I could live with. Mistakenly isn't proven either, in my view.

The other is:

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 MacCann and Gerald MacCann 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.

So yeah but no but, on my reading. Other points seem to be proven but not in the McCanns favour. One about the twins I'm also not sure of. But it seems to me to be mostly for the Defendants. The TV company may be a tiny bit liable, but I can't see the rest being so.

Thanks for the information and link to read the most info from source that there is. 

Thank you.

Christina

Posts : 47
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-04

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 0:28

From your link, aiyoyo, 'The other issue was related to the WOC issue. From this day on, the claimants have 30 days to hand over the London Court's authorization to have Madeleine McCann represented by her parents in this trial. Meanwhile the trial is suspended. After the 30 days delay, which of course can happen to be shorter, the lawyers will have ten days to hand in their "allegations of law".'

Given that the McCanns have had some 6/7 months to procure the necessary documentation and given that, as party to the proceedings, in any application made in respect of the Ward/Wardship they will have been served with the relevant Orders, I would expect any delay to be consideraby shorter than 30 days.

That said, I have a feeling the McCanns may attempt to obtain an extension to the time limit imposed by the judge.

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 Christina on 22.01.15 0:50

Aiyoyo

Thanks so much for that. Already I'm seeing a bit more completely on it. Will carry on reading - didn't know how to find Ann Guedes' work (other than links I'd forgotten) after I looked at that Justice site to find her reports, which then disappeared. Good to know where her reports are now - am back reading and want to know what happened in the fairest fashion. Ann is that to me. Cheers.


From AG's report Ms Duarte didn't deem it important enough to attend..

For the claimants, Dr Ricardo Afonso  (representing Dra Isabel Duarte)
For the defence,  Dr Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, Dra Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, Dr Henrique Costa Pinto. Dr Miguel Coroadinha (TVI) was absent.
 
The Judge asked the lawyers to read the document in case they needed clarification on some points or had any objection, suggesting it wasn't definitive. In fact it is on this document that the lawyers who solicited it at the last hearing (all of them) will build their "allegations of law", i.e indicate how they would interpret the law on these topics. The judge left the court room, leaving the lawyers at their reading.

Christina

Posts : 47
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-04

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 Christina on 22.01.15 1:25

ultimaThule

So true. It's interesting how much time they will always take advantage of. And protract. More time..

I also spotted the important bit at the end where AG says that's the last report as decisions will be emailed to lawyers! Wonder who'll be leaking first? In my view not much of a guess involved! I hope the decision goes to the Defendants - this is the only fair outcome.

Christina

Posts : 47
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-04

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 2:20

The book did not harm the McCann's, this has already been established by the Appeals Court and fully upheld by the Portugal Supreme Court in March 2011. The book written by GA is allowed to be in circulation.
So what is this trial now really all about, it certainly could not be about the book and it's supposed harm to the McCann's, otherwise the initial decision to take it off the shelves would still stand, but that is not the case.
What harm has been done to the McC's otherwise? Nothing as far as i can tell. IMO this case should of been thrown out of Court by now.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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