Re: McCanns Get Court Date For £1m Cop Lawsuit

by Xavier 14.12.11 10:45

Aquila - there may be a breakdown, somewhere. But that will be in the court papers, to whcih nobody but the lawyers will have access. However, it is more likey to be an estimate of the profits likely to have been made from the book, documentary and other activities which was then accepted by the court. I think you will have to accept that not everything is on the table.

I think the action is likely to be brought "jointly and severally" which means they all share liability and costs in equal proportion, with the proviso that if one party is unable to pay then their share falls on the others. That would present an interesting problem in the event of disagreement.

It would depend on the court of course. But it is possible (thinking aloud here) that in that case one party may make an independent offer to settle and that would either be accepted or denied, and then it would down to negotiation.

You are absolutely right - civil cases are messy and can be less than savoury!

Candyfloss - it can be either.

by Guest 14.12.11 11:00

From the algarve news....................

< Vexatious libel litigants in Portugal have little to lose, because:

1. It costs relatively little to bring a criminal libel case in Portugal as it is essentially paid for by the Public Prosecution Service. (Judges themselves who bring libel cases enjoy favourable terms…and are exempt from paying any court costs!)
2. In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.
3. Even when the European Court of Human Rights determines that Portugal is in breach of Article 10 governing Freedom of Expression(which it invariably does) and orders the State to reimburse the applicant all fines and damages paid plus expenses incurred, the Portuguese litigant still gets to keep his/her “compensation” as the bill is footed by the Portuguese taxpayer!
There are therefore few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence, libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for any malicious litigant.

Unlike in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision rests at 1st instance with one judge.

The offence of aggravated defamation is an inversion of democracy because it provides for greater punishment where the plaintiff is a judge, public official, lawyer or member of the clergy; insulating from criticism and scrutiny the very people who exercise power over other people’s lives, and therefore need to be subject to greater, not less, scrutiny and accountability.

The only legitimate purpose of libel laws is to protect reputations from unwarranted attack and the dissemination of false statements of fact. A reputation is an objective, definable concept and hence the European Convention refers to the balancing of the rights of freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

In Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention has substituted the word “reputation” for the term “honour.” >

http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-libel-actions-in-portugal.html

by **Tony Bennett** 14.12.11 11:10

candyfloss wrote:According to a poster on MCF in Portugal a libel case is a criminal case not a civil case.

The case is a civil claim against others for damages caused by alleged libel.

The first we heard about the planned libel action of the McCanns was an article in the Sunday People on 12 July 2009 (agreed that this doesn't come top of any list of reliable sources).

It claimed that it had received a translation of the libel writ, which of course had been prepared in Portuguese by the McCanns’ team of Portuguese lawyers. In the libel writ, the McCanns claimed 1.2 million euros (over £1 million) from Mr Amaral, which the McCanns estimated was the ‘profit’ made by Mr Amaral and his publishers, Guerra e Paz [‘War and Peace’], and by the TV company which transmitted the documentary, TVi.

Many commentators could simply not understand why the McCanns, if they believed the contents of the book to be so libellous and damaging to them, did not attempt to injunct the book at birth, rather than wait until Mr Amaral and his publishers had, over a full 12 months, made a net profit of over £1 million. It remains a mystery.

The writ claimed that Mr Amaral’s book had hindered the ongoing search for Madeleine McCann and had caused them immense distress and significant ill-health. According to The People, the writ stated that as a direct result of the book:

“Dr Kate McCann is deeply and seriously depressed. Both the McCanns are suffering from permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and ‘indefinable fear’. The McCanns are as a direct result of the book totally destroyed, irreparably damaged, and ‘totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view’.”

The writ alleged that this range of ill-effects was not triggered by the loss of their eldest daughter - but only by Mr Amaral’s book.

The McCanns will therefore have to prove ALL of the following:

1. That the book libelled them i.e. went beyond Dr Amaral's rights to free speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights* and strayed into the territory of unreasonably damaging someone's reputation AND

2. That these libels significantly (if at all) affected the search for Madeleine, and

3. That these libels were the direct and sole or main cause of the list of emotional and physical ill-health outlined above in their writ.

It will be a tough task.

[ * The Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) have already both ruled that in striking a fair balance between Dr Amaral's right to freedom of expression and the McCanns' right to have their reputation preserved, the balance was tipped decisively in favour of the public being able to read Dr Amaral's list of facts concerning the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance - and to be able to read Dr Amaral's hypothesis based on those facts.

Just like Dr Gerald McCann's statement on oath to the Leverson enquiry, it seems, the two supreme courts in Portugal are also 'strong believers in freedom speech' and have no objection whatsoever to anyone ~~'purporting'~~ propounding a theory ]

by happychick 14.12.11 11:23

Tony Bennett wrote:Many commentators could simply not understand why the McCanns, if they believed the contents of the book to be so libellous and damaging to them, did not attempt to injunct the book at birth, rather than wait until Mr Amaral and his publishers had, over a full 12 months, made a net profit of over £1 million. It remains a mystery.

by aiyoyo 14.12.11 17:25

Xavier wrote:[color=blue]yo
I second that.
Me, too, I don't see any aggressive tone in Gillyspot and Aquila perfectly valid questions, just xavier accusing them in lieu of answering their questions.

Quoting xavier : "I am simply trying to bring a little informed legal perspective to this forum". I take that to infer he's legal background, so, since xavier is a legal-wise-owl can we respectfully ask him to at least TRY to bring us his informed legal perspectives on the upcoming libel in positive lights bearing in mind the purpose of this forum, that is, Justice for Madeleine? It would be interesting to hear xavier legal view on the Amaral upcoming libel trial.

[/quote]

Aiyoyo - you do seem to have a problem with me, and I am sorry that you do. May I respectfully suggest that you either get whatever it is off your chest, and we clear it up or that you put me on ignore.

What questions am I not answering?[/quote]

The questions Gillyspot and Aquila posed in case you've overlooked. They asked for your view and all they get is you accusing them of aggressive tone where none exists - well at least no one else notice it that way.

You did the same with me - instead of answering questions posed to you, you deflate them by criticism using accusory method - I wonder why? BTW, its you who perceived I have a problem with you - up to you really if you want to keep up that game.

I was merely suggesting (perfectly valid I believe) that since you claimed informed legal knowledge perhaps you might want to contribute positively and constructively to this forum instead of being constantly critical TB, Amaral, and even Pat Brown, people who questioned the mccanns version and who seek the truth. If you want to continue to pretend you don't know what I am talking about - fine, so be it!
I am sure I am not the only one observing that here?

So far you have not got a good word to say about TB, Amaral, and Pat Brown's efforts to get justice for Madeleine - I wonder why is that so? And I thought we are all here to seek for Madeleine sake. Isn't that the objective of this forum?

This forum isn't about people playing games. And if you want to to continue with your games by your ignorant criticism and pretendy support for this stand and what it stands up, it is entirely up to you; however I believe I do have a right to speak my mind - you seem to have a problem with that I notice. Isn't that just par for the course. Or do you think only you have the exclusive to criticise people here in your rather obtuse way ?

Well, if you have a problem with my forthrightness- then you can always put me on ignore! I am not going to put you on ignore because I believe people should be allowed their say provided it isn't needless and endless criticism of certain targets for God knows what reasons, which then begs the question of the purpose of your posts isn't it, wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, fellow posters for subjective you people to this unpleasant exchange but I cant stand what he said about those three people who work tirelessly to campaign for the Truth. He even implies TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the mccanns? Am I wrong in questioning whether he is here for justice for Madeleine? Let him put his money where his mouth is to show his purported support for this forum, its posters, and people like Amaral and Pat Brown who seek the truth and Justice for Madeleine.

I rest my case.

by aiyoyo 14.12.11 17:42

Xavier wrote:Aquila - there may be a breakdown, somewhere. But that will be in the court papers, to whcih nobody but the lawyers will have access. However, it is more likey to be an estimate of the profits likely to have been made from the book, documentary and other activities which was then accepted by the court. I think you will have to accept that not everything is on the table.

1.2m is likely to be based on sales turnover of the books rather than profit.
Logic dictates no author can make a 1.2M profit on 330,000 books allegedly sold, after various operating and distributors and publications costs have to be taken into account.
Likely the mccanns after having waited 1-1/2 year to bring about this litigation calculated the figure by using book price multiplied by nr. of books sold to arrive at that figure and who is to say they didnt inflate the figure since no one is any wiser having not seen their court doc.
Anyhow, just to point out, indicated book price may not be end selling price. Since mccanns could not have got the sales figure from source let alone profit, it is reasonable to assume they made up the figure just like they made up facts (to quote gerry).

I think the action is likely to be brought "jointly and severally" which means they all share liability and costs in equal proportion, with the proviso that if one party is unable to pay then their share falls on the others. That would present an interesting problem in the event of disagreement.

If you are referring to publisher,distributors, media, and Amaral sharing the 1.2m cost you will find that you may be wrong because Amaral is the only one sued for Libel and claim of 1.2M is filed against him alone going by the freezing of only his assets, and not those of the publisher et al even though copyright belongs to the publisher.

It would depend on the court of course. But it is possible (thinking aloud here) that in that case one party may make an independent offer to settle and that would either be accepted or denied, and then it would down to negotiation.

You are absolutely right - civil cases are messy and can be less than savoury!

My understanding is : Libel is deemed criminal case in Portugal and not civil, as opposed to UK where libel is classified as civil case. xavier may want to check and confirm that seeing he's some expertise in matter of law.

Candyfloss - it can be either.

by jd 14.12.11 18:24

If the mccanns fund is based on making money from libel action then they would, as said by smethurst, be claiming 1.2 million but reserve the right to increase depending on books sales/profits

if the mccanns felt the book was so libellous and damaging to them, they indeed would have attempted to injunct the book at birth

by littlepixie 14.12.11 19:55

How do they quantify "Damaging the search for Madeleine". No book could stop you searching for your child if she was lost. So how can a book damage a search?

Strangers are not legally obliged to help you search for something you have lost, if you are lucky, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and they don't charge money for it.

Nothing is stopping the McCanns and their family and friends searching for Madeleine if they think she is lost - Nothing!

by aiyoyo 14.12.11 20:13

littlepixie wrote:How do they quantify "Damaging the search for Madeleine". No book could stop you searching for your child if she was lost. So how can a book damage a search?

Strangers are not legally obliged to help you search for something you have lost, if you are lucky, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and they don't charge money for it.

Nothing is stopping the McCanns and their family and friends searching for Madeleine if they think she is lost - Nothing!

Well said. thanks

Book or no book, it is their moral and legal duty to search for their child if they said she is lost.
Book or no book, people will report sighting should that happens.

Claiming the book damage their search is so untrue. And they think demanding all the money Amaral have is going to bring back Maddie is so laughable.

by Nina 14.12.11 20:19

littlepixie wrote:How do they quantify "Damaging the search for Madeleine". No book could stop you searching for your child if she was lost. So how can a book damage a search?

Strangers are not legally obliged to help you search for something you have lost, if you are lucky, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and they don't charge money for it.

Nothing is stopping the McCanns and their family and friends searching for Madeleine if they think she is lost - Nothing!

Well said LittlePixie. What would stop though is the money that they say they use to fund the search. Takes lots of cash to get a cheap flight to PdL and stay in a B&B whilst you scour the lawless lairs within a 10km radius of PdL.

by Xavier 14.12.11 22:45

Aiyoyo wrote: (clipped extract)

Sorry, fellow posters for subjective you people to this unpleasant exchange but I cant stand what he said about those three people who work tirelessly to campaign for the Truth. He even implies TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the mccanns? Am I wrong in questioning whether he is here for justice for Madeleine? Let him put his money where his mouth is to show his purported support for this forum, its posters, and people like Amaral and Pat Brown who seek the truth and Justice for Madeleine.

THree points.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a cool objective appraisal of the legal position and bias in favour of the McCanns. Fair enough.

Where have I implied that TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the McCanns? I think you need to provide some evidence of that.

Defamation can be civil or criminal in Portugal. Acid test - is this case being heard in a civil or a criminal court?

by aiyoyo 17.12.11 6:08

Xavier wrote:
THree points.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a cool objective appraisal of the legal position and bias in favour of the McCanns. Fair enough.

Where have I implied that TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the McCanns? I think you need to provide some evidence of that.

Defamation can be civil or criminal in Portugal. Acid test - is this case being heard in a civil or a criminal court?

No surprise you seem to have chosen to miss the point altogether, but in doing so, you in turn proved my other point.
You seem unable to distinguish between forum's objective of "truth for Madeleine", and propaganda for her parents.
You seem proud of your "cool objective" for the pair of liars.

You implied TB should be punished for BoU; and bearing in mind mccanns filed punishment as "commit to prison', your implication could not be any clearer, whether you like to hear it put to you or NOT.

Yes, defamation can be civil libel or criminal libel in Portugal.
Court venue is no determination of the nature of charges - Civil, Criminal, and other Charges can be heard there just the same.

AFAIK two criminal charges were filed against Amaral. Since injunction was heard there I imagine it's logical for defamation trial to remain in same Court. Unless you know better as you seemed well informed on the legal matters pertaining to the lying pair.

I would be surprised if ID missed the opportunity to file it under 'criminal'.
You could well be right - there may be reasons for ID to file it under 'CIVIL' only .
It's not beyond sly mccanns to want to avoid being crossed examined in Court before a judge, and having to answer questions in a criminal trial; as the implication of the verdict can work in both directions.

by Xavier 17.12.11 8:41

aiyoyo wrote:
Xavier wrote:
THree points.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a cool objective appraisal of the legal position and bias in favour of the McCanns. Fair enough.

Where have I implied that TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the McCanns? I think you need to provide some evidence of that.

Defamation can be civil or criminal in Portugal. Acid test - is this case being heard in a civil or a criminal court?

No surprise you seem to have chosen to miss the point altogether, but in doing so, you in turn proved my other point.
You seem unable to distinguish between forum's objective of "truth for Madeleine", and propaganda for her parents.
You seem proud of your "cool objective" for the pair of liars.

A: Not at all. I happen to think that finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine goes deeper than perpetuating myths and taking an entirely partisan approach, where certain individuals can do no wrong and others can do no right. There is fault on both sides, and anyone seeking the truth is fooling themselves if they do not recoginsie this.

You implied TB should be punished for BoU; and bearing in mind mccanns filed punishment as "commit to prison', your implication could not be any clearer, whether you like to hear it put to you or NOT.

A: I did not impy anything. I said that he has exposed himself to "punishment" for breaching the undertaking he gave, without first applying to have that undertaking set aside. The fact is that he did enter into a high court undertaking. Whilst it is the McCanns who have made a complaint, it is with the court that he must deal. In point of fact the court does not seek to punish - simply to ensure compliance with the undertaking he gave. They have a range of sanctions to do this, which include commital to prison, or a fine.

A: If you bother to check to facts, you will see that the draft application (which is in standard wording for contempt of court) suggests that any commital to prison be suspended, and it uses the term "or" a fine, and that it makes provision for the order to be set aside in due course.

Yes, defamation can be civil libel or criminal libel in Portugal.
Court venue is no determination of the nature of charges - Civil, Criminal, and other Charges can be heard there just the same.

A: Really? you may wish to check your facts on that one.

AFAIK two criminal charges were filed against Amaral. Since injunction was heard there I imagine it's logical for defamation trial to remain in same Court. Unless you know better as you seemed well informed on the legal matters pertaining to the lying pair.

A: The McCanns have filed a civil action for libel. The injunction was preliminary to that. The criminal charges filed against Amaral were nothing to do with the McCann case, but related to the Cipriano case.

I would be surprised if ID missed the opportunity to file it under 'criminal'.
You could well be right - there may be reasons for ID to file it under 'CIVIL' only .
It's not beyond sly mccanns to want to avoid being crossed examined in Court before a judge, and having to answer questions in a criminal trial; as the implication of the verdict can work in both directions.

A: So which is it? You seem to be trying to argue both ways.

A: Possibly - but I think their aim is to get money rather than have Amaral fined etc.

by Gillyspot 17.12.11 10:55

Xavier wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Xavier wrote:
THree points.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a cool objective appraisal of the legal position and bias in favour of the McCanns. Fair enough.

Where have I implied that TB should be committed to prison for standing up to the McCanns? I think you need to provide some evidence of that.

Defamation can be civil or criminal in Portugal. Acid test - is this case being heard in a civil or a criminal court?

No surprise you seem to have chosen to miss the point altogether, but in doing so, you in turn proved my other point.
You seem unable to distinguish between forum's objective of "truth for Madeleine", and propaganda for her parents.
You seem proud of your "cool objective" for the pair of liars.

A: Not at all. I happen to think that finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine goes deeper than perpetuating myths and taking an entirely partisan approach, where certain individuals can do no wrong and others can do no right. There is fault on both sides, and anyone seeking the truth is fooling themselves if they do not recoginsie this.

You implied TB should be punished for BoU; and bearing in mind mccanns filed punishment as "commit to prison', your implication could not be any clearer, whether you like to hear it put to you or NOT.

A: I did not impy anything. I said that he has exposed himself to "punishment" for breaching the undertaking he gave, without first applying to have that undertaking set aside. The fact is that he did enter into a high court undertaking. Whilst it is the McCanns who have made a complaint, it is with the court that he must deal. In point of fact the court does not seek to punish - simply to ensure compliance with the undertaking he gave. They have a range of sanctions to do this, which include commital to prison, or a fine.

A: If you bother to check to facts, you will see that the draft application (which is in standard wording for contempt of court) suggests that any commital to prison be suspended, and it uses the term "or" a fine, and that it makes provision for the order to be set aside in due course.

Yes, defamation can be civil libel or criminal libel in Portugal.
Court venue is no determination of the nature of charges - Civil, Criminal, and other Charges can be heard there just the same.

A: Really? you may wish to check your facts on that one.

AFAIK two criminal charges were filed against Amaral. Since injunction was heard there I imagine it's logical for defamation trial to remain in same Court. Unless you know better as you seemed well informed on the legal matters pertaining to the lying pair.

A: The McCanns have filed a civil action for libel. The injunction was preliminary to that. The criminal charges filed against Amaral were nothing to do with the McCann case, but related to the Cipriano case.

I would be surprised if ID missed the opportunity to file it under 'criminal'.
You could well be right - there may be reasons for ID to file it under 'CIVIL' only .
It's not beyond sly mccanns to want to avoid being crossed examined in Court before a judge, and having to answer questions in a criminal trial; as the implication of the verdict can work in both directions.

A: So which is it? You seem to be trying to argue both ways.

A: Possibly - but I think their aim is to get money rather than have Amaral fined etc.

Interesting last answer Xavier. "their aim is to get money rather than have Amara fined etc" - Why would the McCanns main aim be to get Amaral's money made from the sale of his book (not have him fined) or is the "damage they suffered" as referred in the original document only financial?

You seem to make my point regarding the non transparent limited fund that it seems McCanns are all about the money not personal damage or even lastly "searching" for Madeleine

by aiyoyo 17.12.11 19:56

Xavier wrote:
A: Not at all. I happen to think that finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine goes deeper than perpetuating myths and taking an entirely partisan approach, where certain individuals can do no wrong and others can do no right. There is fault on both sides, and anyone seeking the truth is fooling themselves if they do not recoginsie this.

Anyone seeking the truth cannot be objective if they fail to recognize irrefutable facts in the Process files that there is not a shred of evidence to support abduction, but strong evidence to support Maddie died in the apt under suspicious circumstances while under charge of her parents.

Do you not think that finding the truth goes beyond blind belief of her parents' theory, who delivered no evidence to support it apart from their inconsistent and evolving testimonies, and who did not offer themselves for elimination?
And, do you not happen to think that the actions of her parents - perpetuating lies and fleeing people's money to defense their sullen reputation abnormal behavior of innocents?
Blind support for a pair of proven liars cannot be about truth for Madeleine.

A: I did not impy anything. I said that he has exposed himself to "punishment" for breaching the undertaking he gave, without first applying to have that undertaking set aside. The fact is that he did enter into a high court undertaking. Whilst it is the McCanns who have made a complaint, it is with the court that he must deal. In point of fact the court does not seek to punish - simply to ensure compliance with the undertaking he gave. They have a range of sanctions to do this, which include commital to prison, or a fine.
A: If you bother to check to facts, you will see that the draft application (which is in standard wording for contempt of court) suggests that any commital to prison be suspended, and it uses the term "or" a fine, and that it makes provision for the order to be set aside in due course.

I beg to differ. I believe in my discerning ability.
You were spinning it while hidden under a guise to suit your agenda, which isn't about support for TB, and now you are trying to distort it further by claiming innocence. Even a blind can see that clearly from your comments what you were on about.
You may not like to hear what I say, but you don't fool any one.

Yes, defamation can be civil libel or criminal libel in Portugal.
Court venue is no determination of the nature of charges - Civil, Criminal, and other Charges can be heard there just the same.

A: Really? you may wish to check your facts on that one.

I stand by my point that Court venue is no indication of the nature of charges. You may wish to check it out to verify for yourself.

A: The McCanns have filed a civil action for libel. The injunction was preliminary to that. The criminal charges filed against Amaral were nothing to do with the McCann case, but related to the Cipriano case.

Really? Have you seen their filed documents? and know definitely that to be the case?

The injunction was a civil case, but the defamation from what I read is filed as criminal case although scheduled for the same court.
Not having seen any docs about detail in the public domain, I cant be certain report I read will be 100% accurate, but FAIU Isabel Duarte filed two criminal charges against Amaral.
Do you think ID's filing against Amaral had anything to do with Cipriano case xavier? Is this something you know that we dont?

I would be surprised if ID missed the opportunity to file it under 'criminal'.
You could well be right - there may be reasons for ID to file it under 'CIVIL' only .
It's not beyond sly mccanns to want to avoid being crossed examined in Court before a judge, and having to answer questions in a criminal trial; as the implication of the verdict can work in both directions.

A: So which is it? You seem to be trying to argue both ways.

No, I am not.
I understood it is a criminal case, while you seemed certain it is civil - so we should wait and see, shouldn't we?

A: Possibly - but I think their aim is to get money rather than have Amaral fined etc.

OMG I can't believe my eyes - for once you hit the nail on the head about the mccanns - it's all about $ to them!
Be it criminal or civil case, the burden of proof is the same, and mccanns objective is always MONEY MONEY and more MONEY!

So would it be fair to say they target Amaral out of malicious intent for financial gain that has absolutely nothing do with all their fanciful claims of damages or whatever? Does that tantamount to a crime to target him under a false pretext just to hit him in the pocket ?

[/quote]

by aiyoyo 20.12.11 9:38

I hope Xavier isnt banned because I would like his view as to why the mccanns need not testify?

Just want to add, actually I do know why the mccanns can't testify, but just want to hear how xavier is going to spin it.

Now that his identity is revealed it would make a change to hear his view in the capacity of sans souci, instead of under pretext of another assumed identity.

by Pershing36 30.01.12 21:10

Goncala has been set up. First his lawyer now I hear the pro's boasting that the head of Portuguese lawyers is to testify against him. They don't fight their battles on equal footing, they haven't done from the start because they made sure the UK Government was behind them from May 4th.

They have the money, UK press and the UK Government. Can anyone really take them on in court?

by Guest 30.01.12 22:45

aiyoyo wrote:I hope Xavier isnt banned because I would like his view as to why the mccanns need not testify?

Just want to add, actually I do know why the mccanns can't testify, but just want to hear how xavier is going to spin it.

Now that his identity is revealed it would make a change to hear his view in the capacity of sans souci, instead of under pretext of another assumed identity.

In the unlikely event that anyone is still missing Xavier, he or she (I've got a feeling it's female) has been very active on the Missing Madeleine in the names of Platinum, Jodel and Navigator but is now banned in all those names! Possibly we are due for a return visit here.