Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by plebgate 16.11.13 11:08

Maybe he went with their timelines as Jane Tanner gave the possibility that an "abductor" had been seen which corresponded to the times given by T9?

by sami 16.11.13 11:14

The book is a concise version of the PJ files. An idiots guide to understanding what is in the files, if you like.

The points of discussing statements, timelines, and the various lies told is separate all together and dealt within various threads in the forum.

The point I am making is that Amaral and his book cannot be stated to be wrong. When the perpetrators are brought to justice it may well transpire that parts of the book were different. However, that will not take away from the fact that when the book was written, based on the published facts available and known at the time it was and still is correct.

by Joss 16.11.13 11:23

sami wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:I have seen those posts but there appears to be no definitive answer, and for years the accepted science on forums like this was that it needed 1.5 to 2 hours. It's only recently that people have started saying 30 mins might be enough, as if they are trying to make the timeline fit the science rather than the other way round. This is pivotal to the whole case, so can someone clear this up once and for all?

If it's 30 mins, Amaral may be right

If it's 1.5 to 2 hours, he's wrong, and my original point re his desire for a libel lawsuit against him would still stand
Amaral's book is based on the information available in the publically released files. Nothing more, it is based on an investigation to a certain point, therefore factual.

Where the investigation was going and what is in the with held files is not known. Investigations change by the minute based on new information.

I don't think you can state therefore he is wrong. His book is factual, based on a specific point in time.

That is exactly how i see it too. Mr. Amaral's book was released what, about a year after Madeline went missing in 2008. The McCann's also refused to co operate with the Portugese investigators when it became difficult for KM to answer some further questions and they were made Arguidos. I don't see how any of it hampered the search for Madeline though regardless. They still searched for the missing child whether she was alive or had died and were searching for a body, so what's their problem? What did Mr. Amaral's book have to do with it?
I think when parents of a missing child lie and change their stories i'm sure the Police have every right to suspect them of something to do with it. That is their job to try and get to the truth of what happened to cause the child to be missing. Parents are always usually suspected in these cases, nothing unusual there.

by Joss 16.11.13 11:31

Over The Hill wrote:I have seen those posts but there appears to be no definitive answer, and for years the accepted science on forums like this was that it needed 1.5 to 2 hours. It's only recently that people have started saying 30 mins might be enough, as if they are trying to make the timeline fit the science rather than the other way round. This is pivotal to the whole case, so can someone clear this up once and for all?

If it's 30 mins, Amaral may be right

If it's 1.5 to 2 hours, he's wrong, and my original point re his desire for a libel lawsuit against him would still stand

Further evidence that he was trying to induce a libel case lies in the fact that he went with the T9 timeline, which is clearly wrong according to other witnesses. I don't understand why he would do this unless it was deliberate

I really don't know if Cadaver detecting dogs is an exact Science, but there is some evidence that Cadaverine can be detected very soon after a death. But of course there is always conflicting opinion on these topics among the so called experts, just as Science can never seem to agree on some issues either. So you can probably find varying opinions on the subject on the net, it is up to you as to what you want to believe i guess.
We can hardly blame Mr. Amaral for that though.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 11:54

I've just had a look through the English translation of the book but couldn't find what I was looking for - can someone remind me if Amaral ever describes what he believes to be the approximate sequence of events between 9 and 10 on May 3? Can't remember if this was in the book or maybe something he said elsewhere

I seem to recall a theory that she fell off the sofa while looking through the window to see Gerry talking to Wilkins - was that Amaral's or someone else's idea?

And has he ever said he believes she died that evening, or does he leave open the possibility of it happening earlier? ie not give timings, just that she died in the apartment at some time, hence the dog alert

This is important from a libel perspective, though the specifics of this trial are different from most defamation cases

by sami 16.11.13 12:04

Over The Hill wrote:I've just had a look through the English translation of the book but couldn't find what I was looking for - can someone remind me if Amaral ever describes what he believes to be the approximate sequence of events between 9 and 10 on May 3? Can't remember if this was in the book or maybe something he said elsewhere

I seem to recall a theory that she fell off the sofa while looking through the window to see Gerry talking to Wilkins - was that Amaral's or someone else's idea?

And has he ever said he believes she died that evening, or does he leave open the possibility of it happening earlier? ie not give timings, just that she died in the apartment at some time, hence the dog alert

This is important from a libel perspective, though the specifics of this trial are different from most defamation cases

He does not describe what he believes in any part of the book. He describes what the investigation believed up to a point. It really is easy to follow, but you need to read it in full, not just look through it.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 12:08

Thanks Sami....... I'm not new to this case. I read the English translation several times when it first appeared and several times since too, but I can't recall every sentence and couldn't find what I was looking for this morning

So he definitely doesn't mention the Gerry/Wilkins plus Maddie falling off the sofa to see them theory in the book? Just the fact that he believes she fell off the sofa at some unspecified time?

by sallypelt 16.11.13 12:24

sami wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:I've just had a look through the English translation of the book but couldn't find what I was looking for - can someone remind me if Amaral ever describes what he believes to be the approximate sequence of events between 9 and 10 on May 3? Can't remember if this was in the book or maybe something he said elsewhere

I seem to recall a theory that she fell off the sofa while looking through the window to see Gerry talking to Wilkins - was that Amaral's or someone else's idea?

And has he ever said he believes she died that evening, or does he leave open the possibility of it happening earlier? ie not give timings, just that she died in the apartment at some time, hence the dog alert

This is important from a libel perspective, though the specifics of this trial are different from most defamation cases
He does not describe what he believes in any part of the book. He describes what the investigation believed up to a point. It really is easy to follow, but you need to read it in full, not just look through it.

Does it really make any difference what time Madeleine died exactly? The dogs showed that there was the scent of death in that apartment, and only that apartment. Moreover, combine this with the fact that a child from that apartment was missing, and all the lies told by the parents, it doesn't take a genius to work out what may have happened. As some people have stated on this thread, one can only write about an event or situation with the information they have AT THE TIME. Dr Amaral used with the information in the files The PJ had also come to the same conclusion as that of Dr Amaral, and the information available AT THAT TIME. Dr Amaral's book was released in August 2008, so it make sense that any information that has come to light since (or was kept back by Dr Amaral, because it was NOT in the files) isn't in the book.

I remember when I was studying history, and was asked a question about how Britain won the war. This was at the time when no historians, who were writing at that time, had heard about the cracking of the Enigma Code, so did it mean that what I had written was WRONG? No, it meant that I did HONEST work based on what was know AT THAT TIME.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 12:34

Hi SallyP, from a legal perspective it does matter whether or not Amaral said it happened at a particular time (but I don't think he did in the book)

If he said it happened, say, at 9.15 when Maddie was looking out of the window at Gerry and Wilkins, and it could be proved that it couldn't have happened at that particular time, his libel defence is weaker than if he just said it happened at some unspecified time

That said, this libel case isn't a libel case in the normal terms as it involves things like hampering the search etc, which isn't really libel

But it's useful to know and all part of the bigger picture

by sallypelt 16.11.13 12:39

Over The Hill wrote:HI SallyP, from a legal perspective it does matter whether or not Amaral said it happened at a particular time

If he said it happened, say, at 9.15 when Maddie was looking out of the window at Gerry and Wilkins, and it could be proved that it didn't happen at that particular time, his libel defence is weaker than if he just said it happened at some unspecified time

That said, this libel case isn't a libel case in the normal terms as it involves things like hampering the search etc, which isn't really libel

But it's useful to know and all part of the bigger picture

This libel trial is about whether "people stopped looking for Madeleine", base on what Dr Amaral had said in his book, and that was that he believed that Madeleine was dead. He then goes on to say what he THINKS may have happened, and how that death MAY have occurred.

It this WAS a trial about truth and lies, the McCann's wouldn't be jet setting around the world, and sitting on tv sofas.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 12:42

Have we established yet that's all he says in the book, and doesn't give a specific time or reason for falling behind the sofa?

And did he expound a theory about Maddie looking out of the window to see Gerry and Wilkins, but not in the book?

That's all I need to know, thanks

by sallypelt 16.11.13 12:45

This is the Foreword from the French version of t he Truth of the Lie

“Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the police judiciaire and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.

However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the “Maddie case.” Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.

In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the police judiciaire or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events – always with respect for the law – and, of course, to relevant enquiries.

The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the “politically correct.”

by sami 16.11.13 12:51

Over The Hill wrote:Hi SallyP, from a legal perspective it does matter whether or not Amaral said it happened at a particular time (but I don't think he did in the book)

If he said it happened, say, at 9.15 when Maddie was looking out of the window at Gerry and Wilkins, and it could be proved that it didn't happen at that particular time, his libel defence is weaker than if he just said it happened at some unspecified time

That said, this libel case isn't a libel case in the normal terms as it involves things like hampering the search etc, which isn't really libel

But it's useful to know and all part of the bigger picture

But the libel dispute arises because, according to the McCanns, the book harmed the search for a living child. They, as far as I am concerned, cannot state the book is complete fabrication, there is no proof the child is alive and the evidence that exists would suggest further investigation of the theory that she is dead.

So the subject of the libel trial, did the book harm the search for a live Madeleine Beth McCann, or was it a statement of the findings of the police investigation in so far as it had progressed before it was shelved, is the question that they want answered.

What tme she died, if she did die, has nothing to do with the trial.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 12:54

Does anybody know the answer to my question three posts above? Thanks

by Joss 16.11.13 13:04

Over The Hill wrote:Does anybody know the answer to my question three posts above? Thanks

Maybe you will have to read through the book again for your answers. Its been a while since i read it but don't recall anything you mention in the book.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 13:15

The key issue is whether he might have been hampering the search on the basis of something that could still be true, or whether he might be hampering it on the basis of a theory that can be proved to be wrong because of timings, alibis etc

Personally I don't believe he hampered the search at all, as is seen by the fact that it's still in all the media more than six years later, but the argument is a legal one

by Okeydokey 16.11.13 13:24

Does anyone know if anyone has ever been found guilty of libel on the basis of hampering a search for a missing individual ever before? I cannot see what the libel is - since you have to libel someONE surely. Do K&G claim they are libelled indirectly? I suppose that must be the case, but it's still very odd.

by Joss 16.11.13 13:31

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

by Okeydokey 16.11.13 13:50

Joss wrote:To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Thanks Joss.

by Joss 16.11.13 13:54

Okeydokey wrote:
Joss wrote:To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
Thanks Joss.

Okeydokey, You're Welcome.

by sami 16.11.13 14:03

Joss wrote:To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Thanks from me too, for such a great, easy to understand explanation. What happens though when as in this case the material was published twice, one by the PJ on releasing the files, the second by Amaral. If he can prove there is nothing in his book not already available in the public files, to quote Gerry how would that be his fault.

by **PeterMac** 16.11.13 14:07

What is the Portuguese law on the subject ?
Sorry to be obtuse, but we already know that Child Abandonment in Portuguese law requires an element of "intent" which the PJ felt they could not prove.
Hence no charges being brought.

Does anyone have a decent translation from a Portuguese law book on the subject ?
We know that their Constitution is totally different from England's, in that it is writen in one document, not thousands, and follows a period of dictatorship, and therefore includes freedom of speech as one of the basic rights.

by Joss 16.11.13 14:15

Amaral, the detective who initially led the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, is expected to argue that under Portuguese law he is entitled to make the claims published in The Truth Of The Lie. The former officer was removed from the Portuguese investigation in October 2007 after criticising the British police. His book is still on sale in Portugal.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/kate-mccann-portugal-libel-case

So from what this article says i would gather Mr. Amaral knows the Laws in his own country as to what constitutes a case of Libel.

by joyce1938 16.11.13 16:44

I have found that mr amaral has always stated that ,he has only used in his book ,the ones in files released and anyone can read do not have to read his book to get the information ,can read the same online .just my opinion that what he says to us is truth as it saood at that time .joyce1938

by Guest 16.11.13 16:52

Over The Hill wrote:I have seen those posts but there appears to be no definitive answer, and for years the accepted science on forums like this was that it needed 1.5 to 2 hours. It's only recently that people have started saying 30 mins might be enough, as if they are trying to make the timeline fit the science rather than the other way round. This is pivotal to the whole case, so can someone clear this up once and for all?

If it's 30 mins, Amaral may be right

If it's 1.5 to 2 hours, he's wrong, and my original point re his desire for a libel lawsuit against him would still stand

Further evidence that he was trying to induce a libel case lies in the fact that he went with the T9 timeline, which is clearly wrong according to other witnesses. I don't understand why he would do this unless it was deliberate

In fact in some cases cadaverine can start to be produced even before actual death.

Log in for more topics