Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial

by aiyoyo 29.04.15 12:25

sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.

Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.

You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.

At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.

Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?

No idea if Portuguese Court functions the same way as UK.
But my educated guess is: it is NOT.
Otherwise wouldn't team Amaral have been given one, and would know how ID got hers?
Maybe the decision was embargoed, but ID couldn't control herself. Who knows? Dr Amaral's side is keeping quiet, but they obviously know by now. Interesting times ahead, I feel.

ID informing her clients before official release is one thing. But releasing "full document" to various news agencies is serious breach of the law.

by **PeterMac** 29.04.15 12:26

Looking at a bad google translation from
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

I am struck by the number of times the word "Rejected" is used, and acquit
"partly" also features quite a lot.

The question of costs seem to be split between and among the McCanns THEIR CHILDREN, and GA and the TV company
So that is going to mess up the children's pocket money for a long time.

by sallypelt 29.04.15 12:27

aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.

Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.

You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.

At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.

Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?

No idea if Portuguese Court functions the same way as UK.
But my educated guess is: it is NOT.
Otherwise wouldn't team Amaral have been given one, and would know how ID got hers?
Maybe the decision was embargoed, but ID couldn't control herself. Who knows? Dr Amaral's side is keeping quiet, but they obviously know by now. Interesting times ahead, I feel.

ID informing her clients before official release is one thing. But releasing "full document" to various news agencies is serious breach of the law.

I totally agree. I have received many embargoed documents in my working life, but I have never disclosed any, before the embargoed time ends.

by **PeterMac** 29.04.15 12:28

aiyoyo wrote:But releasing "full document" to various news agencies is serious breach of the law.

Slightly less serious than lying to the police about how you got into the apartment, or whether the curtains were wide open or tight closed . . . ?
But, hey, who cares about that now !

by sallypelt 29.04.15 12:30

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:But releasing "full document" to various news agencies is serious breach of the law.

Slightly less serious than lying to the police about how you got into the apartment, or whether the curtains were wide open or tight closed . . . ?
But, hey, who cares about that now !

Or the key on the counter.................or was it?
Or GM entering by the front door................or was it the back door?
Or the door being unlocked.................or was it locked.

Oh dear! Confusions, confusions. But isn't confusion good?

by Joss 29.04.15 12:32

plebgate wrote:
Joss wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-plot-thickens.html

The plot thickens......

Yesterday, 28th April 2015, the media reported that the McCanns had been awarded varying figures from the damages trial they instigated against Goncalo Amaral. We were very sceptical as to whether the news was genuine, or whether it was simply more dirty tricks from team McCann, the like of which we saw on January 21st 2015, when someone, rumoured to be Isabel Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, told the Lusa News Agency that the McCann's had won the trial against Goncalo.

For those of you who don't know what the Lusa News Agency is, it is basically a 51% state owned organization, that gathers reports and articles, press and news companies can then access this information, and use it to publish news through their outlets. As Sky News and various others did yesterday.

What took us all by surprise as events unfolded, was that the press were getting these stories before Goncalo's legal team were. This just didn't make sense at all The verdict was always supposed to be sent to both parties in writing.

So why didn't Goncalo's team have the documentation?

The answer to that is quite astonishing.

Isabel Duarte got her hands on the document before it passed through Citius, the judicial network, she then passed it on to several journalists.

The documentation that she was passing round yesterday, bore no official authentication. It couldn't possibly have done, as it hadn't passed through the full legal process.

http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

We will update this blog for you to judge for yourselves, just as soon as we have more information.

Some big questions remain though.

How was confidential information leaked to Isabel Duarte?

Did Isabel Duarte obtain these documents illegally?

Has Isabel Duarte breached legal protocol by passing unofficial documentation onto the press?

and most importantly, could this jeopardise the entire verdict?

Centre of a judicial storm, Isabel Duarte (above)

One thing is for sure it opens the door for an official complaint from Goncalo Amaral's legal team, who yesterday couldn't publicly comment to the many calls from the media, as they didn't have any information with which to do so.

Wowsers!
Wowsers indeed.

Thanks also to Sallypelt for her posts. Feeling a bit more hopeful after reading them and the above.

Sending best wishes to GA and hope that he does have the fight in him to keep going.

As Tony posted, it is not over til the fat lady sings.

Yes Thanks to Sallypelt. And agree, best wishes GA, and can't wait till the fat lady does finally sing which could still be a ways off yet. As i mentioned earlier hope GA has got a really good lawyer to get this nonsense thrown out on appeal. Keeping my fingers crossed for him.

by Verdi 29.04.15 12:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.

Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.

You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.

At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.

Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?

Wasn't that the purpose of the hearing in January this year? Following that hearing, I understood it to be that the judges sentence would be notified by mail to all parties concerned, if so how can the information now being circulated be leaked prior to official release?

by Guest 29.04.15 12:36

So far... I don't see an official reason for this decision.

Surely the judge has to justify their position too?

Anyone?

by Guest 29.04.15 12:38

sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.

Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.

You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.

At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.

Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?

No idea if Portuguese Court functions the same way as UK.
But my educated guess is: it is NOT.
Otherwise wouldn't team Amaral have been given one, and would know how ID got hers?
Maybe the decision was embargoed, but ID couldn't control herself. Who knows? Dr Amaral's side is keeping quiet, but they obviously know by now. Interesting times ahead, I feel.

ID informing her clients before official release is one thing. But releasing "full document" to various news agencies is serious breach of the law.
I totally agree. I have received many embargoed documents in my working life, but I have never disclosed any, before the embargoed time ends.

Maybe the former Head of Media Monitoring knows about such things?

by aiyoyo 29.04.15 13:01

Bad google translation, but suffice for purpose.
Maddie is not "WOC". This can be put to bed once and for all.
She is only pawn for her parents to get their hands on Police document. Of course, what else?

From assumptions of the validity and regularity of proceedings was left to this sentence, by the order of May 20, 2014, the question of the regularity of representation of Madeleine McCann author by authors Gerald and Kate McCann, parents.
It was felt then that it was before the lack of authorization provided for in paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Civil Procedure Code, missing in the record, in particular, the authorization of the UK Court (that is less "Ward of the Court") for the bringing of this action.
The authors joined a certificate issued according to the artº 39 of EC Regulation 2201/2003 which demonstrates the "Family Division" of the High Court of Justice of that country, by decision of 21 March 2014, authorized the authors Gerald and Kate McCann to
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Tel: 213 846 400 Fax: 213 874 221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
represent the minor in related procedures with the content and purpose of the book in question in the action and subsequent media activity related to the same.
Moreover, as evidenced in pgs copy. 2158 and 2159 (reqto of the authors of January 23, 2015) those plaintiffs have since July 16, 2010, a decision of the same court for the minor Madeleine figure as an author in the action against the four defendants.
In light of these data there will be deemed remedied the representation of misdemeanors in accordance with article 29 of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore reject the objection raised by the defendant Goncalo Amaral.

What are they going to do with that money in the pte ltd co, now that they'd suspended private search. Don't tell me they are going to resume that.......after OG ?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.04.15 13:02

Just a look back at a couple of predictions back in January:

================================================

Tony Bennett on CMOMM (the forum described by Blacksmith as a cess pit) 21 January 2015

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10766p70-the-january-2015-mccanns-v-amaral-hearing-on-the-facts-what-did-the-portuguese-court-of-appeal-say-about-the-facts (page 8 of thread, 21 January)

QUOTE TB: 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?

Blacksmith on the Blacksmith blog, January 2015

QUOTE Blacksmith: We will know the verdict within 7 weeks and the McCanns are toast

by Doug D 29.04.15 13:03

Aiyoyo posted this at 12.20.

Jim Gamble‏@JimGamble_INEQE [/color][/u][size=13]33m33 minutes ago
@magsmags @BBCWorld lol. The shame is all his. Unprofessional & IMO inexcusable behaviour that damaged the search for a missing child.

From my reading of the google translation that I posted at 11.50, this could well be libelous in its own right as I don’t believe the judgement says any such thing.

One of the ‘proven facts’ listed in the judgement is:

75. On 17.10.2007, Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for Kate McCann authors and Gerald McCann said they were realistic enough to admit that his daughter would probably be dead [point BI) of undisputed].

So quite how a book published after that date can further damage the search for a missing child is frankly beyond me.

eta Aiyoyo:

'Maddie is not WOC'

I don't think this is what the judgement is saying. I think it just says that the Mc's are entitled to act for her in this regard

by Bishop Brennan 29.04.15 13:07

BlueBag wrote:So far... I don't see an official reason for this decision.

Surely the judge has to justify their position too?

Anyone?

Apparently there is a 52-page judgement which one of the Portuguese papers claims to have seen (see link below). This will contain the reasoning. It is the one where which repeats multiple times that Amaral published the book just 3 days after the case was shelved (presumably implying that he wrote it BEFORE the shelving).

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-court-orders-mccanns-be-paid-500000-in-damages-by-former-pj-detective/34612

The online judgement that we have seen appears to be just the summary of the main award / costs.

by sallypelt 29.04.15 13:11

If one party has to pay 59% of the court costs, and the other party has to pay 41%, the question I have to ask is, who has won and who has lost?

Just a thought!

by jeanmonroe 29.04.15 13:16

Judgement

VIII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the action attached by the authors MADELEINE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE.
--------------------------------------------
Just as we ALWAYS 'suspected' the McCann children could NOT be 'included' in the libel 'writ'

Especially Madeleine who IS a WOC and COULD NOT and CANNOT be represented by the McCanns, as they had given, voluntarily and 'speedily', 'wardship' of Madeleine to the UK 'court'.

The UK 'court' decides what is best for Madeleine, not her parents.

THEIR CHOICE!

( Nobody has ever fully 'explained' to me, HOW can a 'missing' person (Madeleine) even bring, or be 'included' in, a libel 'writ' to a court)

Anyway,

Here's what they were 'demanding' from GA.

The McCanns decided on the figure of £1 million (£1.2 million Euros) as the sum they wish to claim for defamation against the former PJ police officer.

What they are demanding

£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.

£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.

£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.

So, £602,000 of the libel damages were, supposedly, 'for' the children!

The children were awarded NOTHING, yesterday, from the libel damages 'case'....................NOTHING.

Because they were not 'entitled' to be 'included' in the libel 'writ'

And, iirc, ID claimed outside of court, that the 'damages' claim of the £1.2 million euros, was to be 'split' evenly, if successful, 5 (FIVE) 'ways' (the two McCann adults and their THREE children)

ID: "They are FIVE"

@ PeterMac

The question of costs seem to be split between and among the McCanns THEIR CHILDREN, and GA and the TV company

"So that is going to mess up the children's pocket money for a long time."
--------------------------------------------------------------
As i HAVE been 'saying' for YEARS!

by Doug D 29.04.15 13:17

BB:

'The online judgement that we have seen appears to be just the summary of the main award / costs.'

http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

Cutting & pasting the judgement from here, just as it is, into ‘word’ runs to 85 pages, so I think it is probably the whole thing.

by Bishop Brennan 29.04.15 13:20

Tony Bennett wrote:Just a look back at a couple of predictions back in January:

Blacksmith on the Blacksmith blog, January 2015

QUOTE Blacksmith: We will know the verdict within 7 weeks and the McCanns are toast

It's always risky to make a prediction, but fair play to those who do. What will be interesting though is to read Blacksmith and TextUSA over the next few days. They have provided beacons of hope and optimism throughout the past 4 years. Not always politely, but in a unique and usually very interesting way.

However, it's looking more and more like whistling in the wind. And after today, there are not many whistlers left...

by Guest 29.04.15 13:20

Bishop Brennan wrote:Apparently there is a 52-page judgement which one of the Portuguese papers claims to have seen (see link below). This will contain the reasoning. It is the one where which repeats multiple times that Amaral published the book just 3 days after the case was shelved (presumably implying that he wrote it BEFORE the shelving).

If that turns out to be the reason then it is crazy and he must appeal.

So what if it was three days.. he wasn't saying anything that hadn't been known for 3 days.

So what if he had done preparatory work... it wasn't public!!!

This stinks of nailing him on a trumped up technicality because it was the best they could do.

by snook 29.04.15 13:26

We all know this isn't about 'harming the search'. It is an exercise in destroying Dr Amaral for daring to question the official McCann version. They were gunning for him immediately and demonstrated that with the Cipriano torture claims ( 'The target was hit' ).

If they are genuine about their claims can we now expect them to go after RDH and others who have questioned their fantasy version of events ? Will Sky be in the firing line for their 'anti' reporting in 2007 ? I would imagine that harmed the search more than any book good given that she had only recently disappeared and therefor 'more findable' ?

by Doug D 29.04.15 13:29

Jeanmonroe:

‘Just as we ALWAYS 'suspected' the McCann children could NOT be 'included' in the libel 'writ'

Especially Madeleine who IS a WOC and COULD NOT and CANNOT be represented by the McCanns, as they had given, voluntarily and 'speedily', 'wardship' of Madeleine to the UK 'court'.’

Not quite right.

Judgement says that the Mc’s were entitled to act on behalf of Madeline & GA’s objection to this was dismissed.

However:

‘None of the other authors (MM, SM, AM) suffered, in our opinion, any direct damage to such facts.’

so at the end of the day it became irrelevant in any case.

All three children could legitimately be included in the writ, but their claims were dismissed.

by aiyoyo 29.04.15 13:33

Doug D wrote:
eta Aiyoyo:

'Maddie is not WOC'
I don't think this is what the judgement is saying. I think it just says that the Mc's are entitled to act for her in this regard

Technically, you are right.

If she is WOC in the full sense, the regular terms & conditions and restrictions would apply, and the Mcs would already have been in breach of the T&C when they applied in retrospect. It would be highly irregular for the Judge to issue approval in a breach situation. If anything, the legal technicality is wrong. I can't see how a Judge can allow legal procedures to be breached and then knowingly break the law just to accommodate the Mcs request !
Also you'd think a Judge/Court has to be impartial, and cannot be drawn into her parents actions or agenda (especially when permission is neither sought nor granted ahead of the action) for all sorts of legal complexity reasons if nothing else.
If Court deems it in Madeleine interest you'd think the Court would assume upon itself to do the necessary and not leave it to her parents to decide on behalf of Court (without consultation), since Madeleine total welfare is empowered and ceded to the Court.
Just sense of reasoning in the deduction.

by snook 29.04.15 13:39

So if Madeleine wasn't harmed then surely this action is invalid? After all she is the one who ultimately suffers if no one is looking for her. (If she was still alive of course, which she's not). I'm confused.

by Knitted 29.04.15 13:55

Doug D wrote:Snipped heavily...

Based on the link http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

Bit of a google translate marathon, (and some translations don’t come out right) but I think:

... ‘None of the other authors (MM, SM, AM) suffered, in our opinion, any direct damage to such facts.’

... ‘It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).

So does this mean that the twins could theoretically, when they are older and able to speak up for themselves, claim they too have suffered 'personal injury' and lay the blame at the foot of Snr. Amaral's book of relevant facts relating to the case? As was said earlier in this thread (I can't find where) it seems that one now only has to claim hurt but provide no supporting evidence... so, in theory, if the twins want a deposit on a house when they turn 18 could they simply 'claim' they keep getting taunted by others quoting from Amaral's book and suffer stress and thus instigate a claim?

by Bishop Brennan 29.04.15 13:58

BlueBag wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Apparently there is a 52-page judgement which one of the Portuguese papers claims to have seen (see link below). This will contain the reasoning. It is the one where which repeats multiple times that Amaral published the book just 3 days after the case was shelved (presumably implying that he wrote it BEFORE the shelving).
If that turns out to be the reason then it is crazy and he must appeal.

So what if it was three days.. he wasn't saying anything that hadn't been known for 3 days.

So what if he had done preparatory work... it wasn't public!!!

This stinks of nailing him on a trumped up technicality because it was the best they could do.

As a wise old sage once said: "Many a good case has been lost on a technicality" And if there were political or other pressures brought to bear on this case, then a technicality is the way in which an incredible but ultimately hard-to-appeal verdict can be delivered.

But I would agree with you - if that was the justification it does seem quite weak.

by Jamming 29.04.15 14:04

@Knitted....Sadly the twins will inevitably suffer taunts, questions and pointing fingers at some stages throughout their lives, as a direct result of the actions of their parents. And you would think that would be torturous for their "parents".

Unfortunately those "parents" are seemingly comforted by their ability to turn all things negative into cash, so yes, they'll probably advise their remaining children to sue & claim wherever possible as they grow older