WHAT IF?

Just wondering, how are we all going to feel,and what are we all going to say IF the libel trial does not go the way we all hope?
Personally i am skeptical about the whole thing,but after all these years I am just hoping that we can maybe get some new information that may take us one step closer to the truth!

He will win imo.

If I am wrong then I will feel gutted for him and his family and for free speech, but I do believe he will win and he believes he will win which at this stage is the most important thing.

plebgate wrote:He will win imo.

If I am wrong then I will feel gutted for him and his family and for free speech, but I do believe he will win and he believes he will win which at this stage is the most important thing.

this is what i feel too.

The UK is said to be 'the libel capital of the world', and people from the US, in particular, if there is the remotest connection with the UK, try and get libel trials sited HERE. Here the burden of proof seems to be back to front, and I understand it is almost as if the accused has to prove he/she didn't libel the plaintiff rather than the plaintiff having to prove he/she HAS been libelled. Come on you lawyers!  Can you clarify this?

I have been led to believe that the libel situation is more sensible in mainland European, as I certainly believe it is in the US. Is there anyone from Portugal or who knows about Portuguese libel law who can more fruitfully comment on this? What has been said in court so far by Mrs Hubbard doesn't seem to cut the mustard as far as I can see... but what do I know?

By Murray Wardrop7:00AM BST 20 Aug 2009

Gerry and Kate McCann have dropped a libel case against the Portuguese newspaper which first linked them to the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

The couple were suing weekly the tabloid Tal & Qual over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
The front page story caused a sensation around the world, as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
This week the couple, from Rothley, Leics, withdrew their defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.
It could argue the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.
The source said the McCanns want to concentrate instead on their £1 million case against Goncalo Amaral, the former head of the Madeleine investigation.
They also suspect Amaral may have been behind the story in Tal & Qual, which has since folded.
The source said: "The libel action against Tal & Qual has been dropped for a number of reasons. Firstly, the newspaper went bust some time ago.
"Secondly Tal & Qual could probably have mounted a defence, as they were reporting what a certain police officer believed at the time.
"Kate and Gerry have been advised it is much better to go for the source of the story.
"When the story first came out it was a huge shock for Kate and Gerry and they did not believe it was true."
The Tal & Qual article was published three months after Madeleine went missing during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve.
It claimed that detectives believed the parents had either caused a fatal accident or had given drugs to their daughter.
Lawyers representing the McCanns filed a writ against the newspaper, its editor Emidio Fernando, and reporter Catarina Vaz Guerreiro.
But two weeks later the couple, both doctors, were sensationally named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in the case.
Deluded chief investigator Goncalo Amaral wrongly believed they had covered up their three-year-old daughter´s death, even though there was no evidence to support his theory.
He was later taken off the case, which was eventually archived and remains unsolved.
In July 2008 the McCanns were cleared of any wrongdoing in a formal report by Portugal´s Attorney General Jose Pinto Monteiro.
They have always believed their daughter was abducted.
Mr Fernando said: "I had total faith in the source and was certain the police were looking at the couple.
"It's not a victory, because I never saw this as a war. I was, as I am today, totally calm about what I wrote."
Gerry and Kate McCann´s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This is a matter for Kate and Gerry´s lawyers in consultation with Kate and Gerry, of course."
Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims.
The McCanns are suing him for at least £1 million for defamation and for breaching their human rights.
They have employed one of Portugal´s leading libel lawyers, Isabel Duarte, in a case expected to be heard in Lisbon next summer.
If they win they will use the money to continue the search for Madeleine, who would now be six.
The Find Madeleine Fund, set up to finance the couple's worldwide search for their daughter, is expected to run out of money by the end of the year, it was reported this week.
The McCanns also plan to sue the group behind a leaflet blaming them for Madeleine´s disappearance.
The couple were "deeply upset" by the fliers, produced by a group called the "Madeleine Foundation", which has accused them of neglect.
The leaflets were received by 10,000 people in the McCann's home village of Rothley.

I don't see how this trial can go any other way than a win for Amaral.

Because in the case summary it says that GM and KM failed to demonstrate their innocence of involvement in MM's disappearance. 

It isn't enough for the McCann's and their friends to say they were upset by the allegations (of course they were!) the court will consider whether it was reasonable for Amaral to advance his theory given the known facts of the case.

And also, I suppose, whether people stopped searching for MM on the basis of what Amaral has said. Actually, I think the opposite is probably true, that Amaral's book and documentary has increased awareness of and interest in the case.

cockerspaniel wrote:Just wondering, how are we all going to feel,and what are we all going to say IF the libel trial does not go the way we all hope?
Personally i am skeptical about the whole thing,but after all these years I am just hoping that we can maybe get some new information that may take us one step closer to the truth!

One thing`s for sure - we`ll definitely know there`s corruption going on at high levels, particularly if SY do a whitewash as well.

An increasingly critical moment, IMO. 

The actions of certain people, tell you everything you need to know about them..

No amount of spin doctors or pr spokespersons' or super injunction's, can ever conceal that. The truth about them, will come out, eventually.

The complete lack of humility being displayed by some people, who believe that they are doing well out of this system and that it will go on forever, is truly staggering.

Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims

The McCanns have made upwards of £3 million by propogating their outlandish claims version of events.

ultimaThule wrote:

Amaral, 49, went on to make more than £1 million by writing a book repeating his outlandish claims

The McCanns have made upwards of £3 million by propogating their outlandish claims version of events.

If your figures are correct then that is an imbalance.

Another imbalance, in this case,  is that Goncalo Amaral lost his job because of it. Gerry McCann returned to his job and, presumably, Kate McCann could have done likewise, if she wished to do so, because she has not been convicted of any crime. 

There, is another imbalance IMO. Goncalo Amaral, as far as I am aware, has not been convicted of any crime relating to this case.

So, if the McCann's had never gone to Portugal and left their three children unattended, then Goncalo Amaral would never, even, have had to deal with them and would still have had his job and , possibly, his family life, also.

It really should not be that hard to see, where the imbalance really is, in this case.

The way that I view it, GA should be suing the McCanns'. It should not be the other way around.

"The way that I view it, GA should be suing the McCanns'. It should not be the other way around."

If he wins he WILL!

Then R Branston (sic) will have to dig deep! LOL!

jeanmonroe wrote:"The way that I view it, GA should be suing the McCanns'. It should not be the other way around."

If he wins he WILL!

Then R Branston (sic) will have to dig deep! LOL!

R Branston?

What does that refer to, in relation to this case?

jeanmonroe wrote wrote:"The way that I view it, GA should be suing the McCanns'. It should not be the other way around."

If he wins he WILL!

Then R Branston (sic) will have to dig deep! LOL!

The renowned space cadet entrepreneur and squillionaire owner of various virginal ventures is reputed to have contributed more than generously to the McCanns' fundraising business legal defence costs, Who?What?Where?. 

However, it remains to be seen whether Sir R Branston will be prepared to chuck another half mill give or take disbursements more of his loose change down the plughole of a losing side.

Should Team McCann incur long overdue and well deserved defeat in the Portuguese courts methinks that, in addition to Sr Amoral and his co-defendants' legitimate claim to a hefty slice of their pie, a certain RD of London EC3 may seek the return of his somewhat premature settlement donation to the limited company which serves to raise revenue for the all encompassing, leave no stone unturned, search for Madeleine which is scheduled to commence this year, next year, sometime, never will no doubt scour the lawless hills around Luz after every nook and cranny of the world's 5* hotels have been explored.

What a pickle, eh?   Or twitter ye not, as exemplified by Mr Brunt

Who is Sr. Amoral?

plebgate wrote:Who is Sr. Amoral?

  Sr Amoral is a construct of the pros, a disgraced, lying ex-cop who is devoid of scruples and principles.

  More intelligent people realise that he is nought but a figment of some very weird and wonderful imaginations.