Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial

Grieving parents!  - I've never seen them grieve yet!  The article didn't mention about the costs they will have to pay whereby they will probably end up with about 'two bob' 

Ladyinred wrote:
"The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."
So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

Very early on there was an answer given to a question about the fund which - from memory - was along the lines of
"It is to continue the search when the police stop."
They knew knew then that she would never be found.
The dogs really bu***** things up.

(I do not have the link or reference, but if anyone has, it should be put here.)

PeterMac wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:
"The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."
So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

Very early on there was an answer given to a question about the fund which - from memory - was along the lines of
"It is to continue the search when the police stop."
They knew knew then that she would never be found.
The dogs really bu***** things up.

(I do not have the link or reference, but if anyone has, it should be put here.)

It was up there with Gerry planning for the long term... he knew Madeleine wasn't going to be found any time soon.

That statement by Clarence is a big red flag if you ask me and someone should press him on it... a member of the Press maybe... oh wait.. that would involve integrity.

Ladyinred wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Silverspeed wrote:An appalling headline to this article although hardly surprising.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/439410/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-Gerry-357k-libel-cash

That article is interesting not for its headline but because it contains the first indications of the imminent wind-down of Operation Grange.

McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search.’’

A statement that implies to me that OG will be winding down shortly and that it will wind down without a result.

"The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

Excellent point LIR.

Where will the  next team of crack PIs start looking I wonder?

How many cops and PIs to date have come up with zilch?

Perhaps the next set of crack PIs will actually go and look in the hellish lair in Portugal we were told about, because it doesn't seem as though any previous "crackers" have.

Courtesy of Madeleine McCann Mystery website

Thursday, April 30, 2015

AMARAL TO APPEAL MCCANNS' LIBEL ACTION

 The McCanns partially won their libel action against the author and former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral, but the matter is far from over.
Amaral intends to appeal. He said today: “I find that the court’s decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion. For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.”
Apart from Amaral’s assertion on the “unfairness” of the court’s decision, there were two remarkable features about the verdict and the way in which it was announced that got little or no mention in the international media coverage.
The first unusual aspect was the huge sum awarded. It may be normal in the UK, but not here. Amaral was ordered to pay the parents of Madeleine McCann half a million euros in damages, plus interest, currently calculated at €106,000 and rising. 
Kate and Gerry McCann had sought a total of €1.2 million. In addition to €250,000 each, they claimed €500,000 for Madeleine and €100,000 for each of their twins. The judge ruled against the claims on behalf of the children.
The McCanns successfully claimed that Amaral’s book, Maddie, the Truth of the Lie, was libellous, causing them great personal distress. The judge did not agree, however, that the book had hindered the search for Madeleine or had caused damages to the twins.
 Should Amaral on appeal get the verdict overturned, or the compensation figure greatly reduced, the McCanns may lodge a counter appeal. The deadline for appeals is 40 days. The legal battle that has been going on for more than five years looks like continuing for some time yet.
A defiant Amaral supporter noted that, “a decision from a Portuguese court can only be enforced after all appeals are exhausted. No money will change hands until a final decision is reached by the very last appeals court.” With this in mind, other well-wishers are being urged to make donations to a Gonçalo Amaral defence fund.
The second oddity was the way in which the announcement of the verdict was handled. The judge’s ruling was not read out in court. It was contained in a 52-page report, which was received by the McCann’s Lisbon lawyer Isabel Duarte who swiftly passed it on to media organisations in Portugal and abroad. 
Soon after the news appeared on media websites, Kate and Gerry McCann said they were “delighted” with the outcome. 
In a statement issued by their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, they said the case had never been about money. “It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.”
When contacted by journalists the same day, Gonçalo Amaral chose not to comment because neither he nor his lawyer, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, had received a copy of the ruling. It was only sent to them the following day, by which time to many in the media it was old news.


posted by Len Port

What I find most bizarre about the judgement, and I hope that this provides some basis for appeal, is that the judge found almost all of the McCanns' allegations not proven and only one partially proven - yet awarded them individually almost all of what they had claimed for the whole set of alleged list of damages. It would be reasonable to expect that if £250K was the required sum for the total individual claim, then if the claim were only partially accepted, there would be a commensurate reduction in the amount awarded. To say in effect that "I only accept that you have proved one tenth of your case but I'll award you nine tenths of what you have claimed" defies any kind of rationale.

endgame wrote:What I find most bizarre about the judgement, and I hope that this provides some basis for appeal, is that the judge found almost all of the McCanns' allegations not proven and only one partially proven - yet awarded them individually almost all of what they had claimed for the whole set of alleged list of damages. It would be reasonable to expect that if £250K was the required sum for the total individual claim, then if the claim were only partially accepted, there would be a commensurate reduction in the amount awarded. To say in effect that "I only accept that you have proved one tenth of your case but I'll award you nine tenths of what you have claimed" defies any kind of rationale.

Unless the judge was inviting an appeal.

Ladyinred wrote:The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

 
 I think probably the most important thing to them is public perception. What Mitchell said implies that SY, after spending millions of pounds and years cannot solve this mystery, it is as the parents said, almost inexplicable in what they say happened and and will never be solved like the riddle of the sphinx or the mystery of the pyramids. He is also confirming that the Mc's will only use the money for the futile act of continuing the search.

  I believe them when they say the libel trial was never about the money, again the public perception is what they were fighting for. If most of the public glance at a headline and see that Amaral has 'legally' been declared a liar then that is worth more than the money. I'm sure they will enjoy the money and destroying their enemy as a bonus.

He aint destroyed yet.

plebgate wrote:He aint destroyed yet.

Yes you are right, I was just getting into their mindset for a second!

ChippyM wrote:

plebgate wrote:He aint destroyed yet.

Yes you are right, I was just getting into their mindset for a second!

I know ChippyM, just felt better posting it.

plebgate wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

plebgate wrote:He aint destroyed yet.

Yes you are right, I was just getting into their mindset for a second!

I know ChippyM, just felt better posting it.

Glad you did

Before i go into 'rant' mode, could somebody tell me what % of 'costs', in the libel case, were apportioned to the OTHER 3 'defendents?

The TV 'people', DVD, and the book 'publishers'.

GA wasn't 'on his own' in being 'sued' for 'libel/damages' was he?

Are the TV/publishers 'costs' included in the 41.70% 'costs' against the 'losing' parties?

If 'split' between the FOUR 'defendents' then GA possibly only 'liable' to 10.4% of, provisionally, 'losing' parties 'costs'?

McCann's liable for 58.30% of libel case 'costs', GA 'liable' for 10.4% of case 'costs'?

istbc, of course.

"AUDIOVISUALS, S.A. in the expense of action attached in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527º of the code of Civil procedure."

Does this 'mean' Audiovisuals and S.A. are 'liable' for 50% of the 41.70% of the 'losing' parties 'costs'?

Probably best to wait for the FULL 'judgement' to be released.

I'm off to buy a 'fine toothed' comb!

jeanmonroe wrote:Before i go into 'rant' mode, could somebody tell me what % of 'costs', in the libel case, were apportioned to the OTHER 3 'defendents?

The TV 'people', DVD, and the book 'publishers'.

GA wasn't 'on his own' in being 'sued'  for 'libel/damages' was he?

Are the TV/publishers 'costs' included in the 41.70% 'costs' against the 'losing' parties?

If 'split' between the FOUR 'defendents' then GA possibly only 'liable' to 10.4% of, provisionally, 'losing' parties 'costs'?

McCann's liable for 58.30% of libel case 'costs', GA 'liable' for 10.4% of case 'costs'?

istbc, of course.

"AUDIOVISUALS, S.A. in the expense of action attached in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527º of the code of Civil procedure."

Does this 'mean' Audiovisuals and S.A. are 'liable' for 50% of the 41.70% of the 'losing' parties 'costs'?

Probably best to wait for the FULL 'judgement' to be released.

I'm off to buy a 'fine toothed' comb!

Good questions Jeanmonroe, will be interesting to see what happens.

With a bit of luck i hope the McC's never see any money from the unconscionable decision they made to sue an investigating officer in this case, after they negligently lost one of their kids, if we are to believe they left three babies home alone in a holiday apartment in a foreign country. They are  certainly not good parents in a lot of people's opinions and should be deeply disturbed by their own actions.
So i hope they will be happy if the Appeal is won by GA, as it should be. How can a libel/damages case be won when it was not proven in court? Something about it all really stinks. I hope GA gets tons of money for his fighting fund from the good people that care about the injustice done to him and his family. He is everything the McC's will never be, a good decent human being that cared about what happened to a defenseless almost 4 yr. old., and for doing his job the McC's and their cohorts tried to destroy him, but they won't be able to do that and he is going to make sure of it by getting back his good name, IMO.

@ PeterMac:

If the McCanns have to pay 58% of the costs of this, and 50% of the costs of the other cases, it is unlikely that even these damages would cover them.
-------------------------------------------------------

istbc, but the 'costs' of the two losing book 'ban' appeal cases, by the McCanns and their three children, were awarded 100% AGAINST the McCann's AND their three children.

They LOST both 'appeals' and are 'liable' for 100% 'costs' for losing. (on 'record')

Unless, 'something' has 'changed' that i've 'missed'.

http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/appeals-court-lifts-ban-on-amarals-book/

Article 81º
(Voluntary limitation of personality rights)
1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.
2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine’s whereabouts, but upon VOLUNTARILY limiting that right, they opened the doors FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO GIVE THEIR 'OPINION' ABOUT THE CASE, in synchrony with what they were saying, BUT ALSO POSSIBLY IN CONTRADICTION with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book’s author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: UPON PLACING THE 'CASE' IN THE PUBLIC 'SQUARE' and giving it worldwide notoriety, THE APPLICANTS/APELLENTS (McCann's) OPENED ALL DOORS TO ALL 'OPINIONS', EVEN THOSE THAT ARE 'ADVERSARIAL' TO THEM.

In a concise manner:

The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.

As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.

The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.

The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code.

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*. (G&K McCann AND their three children 'named' in 'writ')

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called ‘appellant’ in the appeals court.

The McCann's AND their three children, included in BOTH losing appeal 'writs,' WERE the 'applicants/appellents'

Have I missed something?

Has anyone seen the full version yet?

Where could I find it?

Thanks in advance!

Bishop Brennan wrote:
The judge then resources to jurisprudence , mainly by the European court of Human rights to weigh the balance between the two rights and which should prevail when conflicts between these two rights exist.

The following is a list of jurisprudence and studies the judge resourced to in order to reach her decision :

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12, 16, 29 -n2)
European Convention for the protection of human rights
European court for Human Rights (she stresses article 8 number 1 of the Portuguese Constitution regarding the reception of international laws)
British cases (Allen C)
German Cases (Karaman c)

Fascinating !  That the Judge even resorts to the use of Jurisprudence to decide verdict.  

The dictionary defines "jurisprudence" as "the theory or philosophy of law."
And, Scholars of jurisprudence are known as legal theorists (including legal philosophers and social theorists of law).  
Can it then be said that a Judge of Jurisprudence is known as a Court theorist?
You'd think in a Court of Law, facts and/or evidence (and not theory) is determinant factor to base the outcome of a case; and that theory is for Academic and has no place in a Court of Law.

So, the evidence presented in court was a total waste of time.  
The Judge relegates it to secondary importance, and in lieu of that, relies on using jurisprudence (theory) to decide the case by referencing a list of jurisprudence materials to arrive at her verdict !  
That will surely become the prime contention in the Appeal?  

For every jurisprudence (theory), academic argument FOR it is equally matched by academic argument AGAINST it.
If jurisprudence is relevant and/or is to be applied, then the choice of referencing materials can become a point of contention. Depending which School/Case/Institution/Nation of Jurisprudence a judge chooses to rely on, the consequential outcome will vary. It can be said that this is a subjective matter - subject to a judge's personal inclination/biased/influence/stance, hence the personal choice of referencing materials.   An-other judge using different selection of referencing materials may arrive at a different outcome and rule differently.

If she was going to use jurisprudence for deliberation, you'd think both parties' legal teams should have been informed of that, and at the very least be given the chance to submit their own list, or be given the right to examine the list of jurisprudence referencing material she will be using. This is to ensure that her list is balanced one and impartial to both sides. If her decision to use theory of jurisprudence rather than evidence of the case to decide the outcome has not been informed to the parties legal teams, then should the list be found to be biased to one leaning, it is definitely strong basis for complaint from the side biased against.

The judge concedes the content of the book is privileged information from the PJ files - that is a fact.  So no libel there. IF this is a libel case then shouldn't the contention and/or evidence of libel have to be presented for cross examinations in court, but this was never done. The issue was on if the book caused them damages, and in this regard, Judge said book is not causal factor, as suffering was pre existence, prior to book, so no case then?  

So what did the Judge do?  She resorts to jurisprudence (law theory) - nothing to do with evidence presented, nothing to do with witnesses depositions, nothing to do with lawyers arguments - all those became incidentals.
It's a very sly move to override the Jurisprudence importance placed on the Freedom of Expression ruled by the two higher courts when unbanning the book.

It leaves one wondering why is it so important for her to use an irregular method to override the ruling of the higher Courts? Is there any Portuguese lawyer who is able to tell us if the judge's move is highly unusual? I should think it is very unprecedented for higher courts ruling to be undone by a lower court.

Call it 'gut feeling, instinct, intuition', whatever, why am i getting that something is not 'quite right' about this 'judgement'?

What do we know about Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro?

She didn't 'appear' to suffer 'fools' gladly at the libel 'case' hearing 'based' almost entirely on HEARSAY, from McCann 'witnesses' did she?

Dismissing BOTH GM and his sister TC, from the witness box, with an incredulous back hand 'wave' of her hand!

Is Judge Maria 'due' for 'retirement/early retirement' anytime 'soon'?

Does anyone know what the Portuguese 'people' are commenting on with regards to this 'judgement'?

aiyoyo wrote:...
So what did the Judge do?  She resorts to jurisprudence (law theory) - nothing to do with evidence presented, nothing to do with witnesses depositions, nothing to do with lawyers arguments - all those became incidentals.
 It's a very sly move to override the Jurisprudence importance placed on the Freedom of Expression ruled by the two higher courts when unbanning the book.  

It leaves one wondering why is it so important for her to use an irregular method to override the ruling of the higher Courts?  

It may in fact be the ONLY way to award a win and 500k to the McCanns DESPITE the complete lack of credible evidence.  

The enormous disconnect between her demeanour in court / the written findings - and the extraordinary cash award is what has shocked everyone on both sides.  Did TPTB sense (as everybody else did) that the trial had slipped away from the McCanns and step in somehow...?  

As you rightly point out she has had to ignore ALL of the evidence given in court and write a jurisprudence essay on competing rights. She could in fact have written this essay at any point - no need even for a trial and all its delays.  And in fact that very same balance of competing rights was pretty much what the Supreme Court ruled on during the book appeal.  Except that this judge has now come to a different conclusion...      

Up until now, the appeal courts seem to have been immune from external influence, and I can't imagine they will take kindly to their ruling being overturned - the Lisbon judge effectively telling them that they got it wrong...!

After what looked like a knock-out blow yesterday, perhaps there is still a round or two left in this fight...    

ChippyM wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

 
 I think probably the most important thing to them is public perception. What Mitchell said implies that SY, after spending millions of pounds and years cannot solve this mystery, it is as the parents said, almost inexplicable in what they say happened and and will never be solved like the riddle of the sphinx or the mystery of the pyramids. He is also confirming that the Mc's will only use the money for the futile act of continuing the search.

  I believe them when they say the libel trial was never about the money, again the public perception is what they were fighting for. If most of the public glance at a headline and see that Amaral has 'legally' been declared a liar then that is worth more than the money. I'm sure they will enjoy the money and destroying their enemy as a bonus.

They say though (paraphrased) it was about the damage done to the search and to the twins. Those 2 claims were denied by the judge.

I agree, they are desperate to proof they are innocent and not all the money in the world can get them that. Not the millions of Operation Grange, nor the thousands from Dr. Amaral (if they ever get that) will ever proof they are innocent. On the contrary, the more they muddle, the more people will read the files, see the videos, and know there is something very fishy going on.

They have joined OJ simpson and the JonBenet parents, and many others in having "guilty" written all over them.

jeanmonroe wrote:Call it 'gut feeling, instinct, intuition', whatever, why am i getting that something is not 'quite right' about this 'judgement'?

The judgement is not quite right in more than one way.

Either the book is damaging or it is not.
Why is it selectively damaging, and hy is it damaging selectively to certain claimants and not to other claimants? Why the children (including Madeleine with the extra hazzle of documentation obtaining) were allowed to be included when they were not going to be consideration in the outcome?

Why the unprecedented high sum of compensation award, when even the State of Portugal has never been made to pay out such a high figure? Why break the record and imposed that on an individual?

Is the Judge out to make history, or is there a sinister reason behind it? We will never know.

Portia wrote:Have I missed something?

Has anyone seen the full version yet?

Where could I find it?

Thanks in advance!

Doug D started posting a translation of the whole thing here

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11227-google-translation-of-the-judgement-part-1

or here if you can read Portuguese

 http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

Does anyone know if Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro has 'presided over' any previous cases LED by ID?

And, iirc, wasn't Judge Maria's house 'broken into' in the early stages of this libel 'case'?

Purely 'coincidental'................... i'm sure.

What 'happened' about that?

Investigated?

Was anything erm 'of value' taken, or just one of her 'kids'?......... (JOKING!)

If a Judge can't get a police investigation into her house being broken into, what hope is there for the rest of us 'mere mortals'!

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Silverspeed wrote:An appalling headline to this article although hardly surprising.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/439410/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-Gerry-357k-libel-cash

That article is interesting not for its headline but because it contains the first indications of the imminent wind-down of Operation Grange.

McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search.’’

A statement that implies to me that OG will be winding down shortly and that it will wind down without a result.

One thing I thought most had learned from 8 years of Clarence Mitchell, was not to believe a single letter that comes out of this persons mouth.

Operation Grange and previous investigations have IMO done their job.