Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by **Hobs** 16.11.13 17:47

PeterMac wrote: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.

As o understood it, the reason the mccanns weren't charged is that if they were charged with neglect resulting in harm, they could not then be later charged with homicide, concealing a corpse or filing a false police report.
In effect, double jeopardy.

The neglect resulting in harm doesn't specify the harm, homicide is harm.

In the UK now we have abolished double jeopardy, if there is new and compeeling evidence in regard to a crime the subject was found not guilty of, such as a confession, forensic evidence etc, they can rearrest them, charge them appropriately ( usually it would be a murder case) and hopefully nail the bugger.

Previously if the murderer was declared not guilty by the courts, he could stand up and admit he did the crime and the courts could do nothing about it, he couldn't be recharged.

These days, they have to keep looking over their shoulders if found not guilty of murder and they did it, Forensics has a nasty habit of advancing and even better we can now identify the culprit via familial DNA.

If you commit a crime and over time someone related to you has their DNA taken, it will be compared to DNA samples on file and if there is a close match they will come knocking on family members doors asking for a sample.

by lj 16.11.13 18:38

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

There can't be a definite answer, because every situation is different. So will it be much faster in small bodies (as in children) or where the patient was in an extreme bad condition before death. Yes in cases it can be detected before death. Than you have the question about what caused the death, what disease or trauma, how long was the patient in that situation. These are only factors limited to the deceased. Then there is the environmental impact as temp etc.

The 1 1/2 - 2 hours is the time that the majority of the bodies release the cadaverine. To use it in this case to determine a time line is fallacy.

by lj 16.11.13 19:05

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

If you read it before you should be able to find it again. Surely since it seems so important to you.

You are abusing the kindness of various posters here, and I don't think your intentions are to find the truth.

So I'll bring your existence here to the attention of the moderators, together with my suspicions.

by Guest 16.11.13 19:23

lj wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:Does anybody know the answer to my question three posts above? Thanks
If you read it before you should be able to find it again. Surely since it seems so important to you.

You are abusing the kindness of various posters here, and I don't think your intentions are to find the truth.

So I'll bring your existence here to the attention of the moderators, together with my suspicions.

I don't think he will be back anytime soon big grin

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 19:30

I don't know why you think I'm suspicious! I'm trying to join in the discussion

I asked if Amaral claimed in the book that Maddie fell off the sofa at 9.15, or if he said it could have happened at any time. I thought the experts on here could help me out so I didn't have to read the whole book again in micro detail

If he said it was 9.15, and cadaver scent can't develop in 45 mins, his theory is wrong - and it would be an issue in court because he could have hindered the search for Maddie on the basis of a false argument. Those are the two facts I needed to know

If he only claimed that she could have fallen off the sofa at any time, he could still be right, therefore he can't be said to have hindered the search on false grounds

I'm sorry if asking relevant questions have become such an issue because these points are good ones and need to be cleared up

by Guest 16.11.13 19:37

Over The Hill wrote:I don't know why you think I'm suspicious! I'm trying to join in the discussion

I asked if Amaral claimed in the book that Maddie fell off the sofa at 9.15, or if he said it could have happened at any time. I thought the experts on here could help me out so I didn't have to read the whole book again in micro detail

If he said it was 9.15, and cadaver scent can't develop in 45 mins, his theory is wrong - and it would be an issue in court because he could have hindered the search for Maddie on the basis of a false argument. Those are the two facts I needed to know

If he only claimed that she could have fallen off the sofa at any time, he could still be right, therefore he can't be said to have hindered the search on false grounds

I'm sorry if asking relevant questions have become such an issue because these points are good ones and need to be cleared up

Why are you asking these questions when you said you had read the book several times IIRC, you should know what you read then. If you can't remember then have another read winkwink

by Daisy 16.11.13 19:42

I'm reminded of a very old English song.

... But all the Tunes that he could play,Was, o'er the Hills, and far away...

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 19:45

Candyfloss, the reason I asked is because I remember Amaral having a theory about Maddie falling off the sofa when trying to see Gerry talking to Wilkins. However, when I looked through the e-book earlier today I couldn't find any mention of it. Therefore I asked if anyone on the forum could tell me if it was in the book, or if this theory was given elsewhere

As I explained above, the specific nature of his theory is a crucial issue in the trial so it needs to be established what he has actually said

by sallypelt 16.11.13 19:51

I've been gone a few hours, and come back, and the same questions are being asked.

I believe that Dr Amaral was analysing the time line, from what Jane Tanner had said. JT said she saw Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann, when she went to do her check at approx. 9:15. GM was supposedly returning from his check. Dr Amaral used this timeline to suggest that if the GM and JT WERE telling the truth, and Madeleine was alive at the time of his check, and had "disappeared" when KM did HER check, and the scent of death was discovered by the dogs, then if you add it all up, you can only come to one conclusion, and that is Madeleine McCann died sometime between 9:15 and 10:00. Dr Amaral believes that Madeleine COULD have heard her father and JW talking outside, and went to see if she could see them through the window, and this is where she may have fallen from the sofa had may have died from the fall. Hence the scent of death behind the sofa. HOWEVER, this is just a theory, based on what Dr Amaral knew AT THAT TIME.

I hope this goes some way to explain why Dr Amaral believed that MM MAY have died around 9:15 PM, but I will also suggest you read the book again, at the appropriate chapter.

Edited to add, if it is not in the book, or in the PJ files, what is the problem?

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 19:57

Thank you SallyP, that's much appreciated..... I went through most of the relevant chapters in the e-book (the site I used was painfully slow) but couldn't find this so I do thank you for clearing this up for me

If it isn't in the book it may not be a problem as the trial appears to specifically refer to the book, but I will have to double check on that

by Bishop Brennan 17.11.13 11:14

Over The Hill wrote:Candyfloss, the reason I asked is because I remember Amaral having a theory about Maddie falling off the sofa when trying to see Gerry talking to Wilkins. However, when I looked through the e-book earlier today I couldn't find any mention of it. Therefore I asked if anyone on the forum could tell me if it was in the book, or if this theory was given elsewhere

As I explained above, the specific nature of his theory is a crucial issue in the trial so it needs to be established what he has actually said

Actually I think you are mistaken. The issue for the court is whether the book is libelous - not whether the theory is correct. If there is libel, then the 'extent of damage' is relevant. But from the transcripts so far, it looks like he stuck 100% to the PJ case files / notes. This probably means it is not libel as the case files are public record, and the book appeared after they were made public.

Remember this is not a trial of the McCanns, and it's not a trial about Amaral's theory. It is not even a trial about whether it 'hindered the search'. It is a "technical" trial as to whether book is libel or not.

by Bishop Brennan 17.11.13 11:32

It is with little sense of surprise that we note that the next Crimewatch Update takes place on the 28th Nov - just after the libel trial resumes...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03k2gbr

by Guest 17.11.13 11:33

Bishop Brennan wrote:It is with little sense of surprise that we note that the next Crimewatch Update takes place on the 28th Nov - just after the libel trial resumes...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03k2gbr

Yes, I have already posted earlier today in Crimewatch Discussion thread, so any discussion on it there please.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8161p230-crimewatch-on-bbc-part-2-discussion#203155

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 11:58

Can we leave 'outing trolls' to Admin please and treat everyone with respect even where we either flat-out disagree with them OR where we think they're here to disrupt? To do anything else just makes you like the 'pro-McCann trolls' you dislike.

Fwiw, I understood what OTH was asking about cadaverine and the importance of the length of time it takes to form to GA's proposed version of events. I myself don't know the bottom-line on 'time needed' and everyone seems to have a different answer. To state that this is unimportant to GA's proposed timeline of events is to apply a different level of accuracy than we demand from the McCanns. To dismiss every question with a demand that the person asking it should go and read all the files first is both unrealistic and unwelcoming.

by thetruthbeknown 17.11.13 14:38

I cant see how it can be libellous to base a theory or book around an investigation, especially if you were involved in that said case. I am hoping it goes in Amarals favour.

In regards to the time of death and cadaver scent..We have been given a 'time-line' as to the movements of the Tapas group, however we do not have such a 'time-line' for Madeleines movements. I dont think there is concrete proof that Madeleine was in her bed on the later checks. In fact we have very few 'independent' witnesses to Madeleines movements that afternoon/evening.

by Over The Hill 17.11.13 18:33

thetruthbeknown wrote:I cant see how it can be libellous to base a theory or book around an investigation, especially if you were involved in that said case

The difference between this case and a case in the UK is that the details of the latter, including most of the witness statements, wouldn't be published online if it was shelved. But I wonder how Martin Smith (and the Gaspars) feel about their secret, and highly sensitive, conversations with the police being revealed to all

by bobbin 17.11.13 18:53

Over The Hill wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:I cant see how it can be libellous to base a theory or book around an investigation, especially if you were involved in that said case
The difference between this case and a case in the UK is that the details of the latter, including most of the witness statements, wouldn't be published online if it was shelved. But I wonder how Martin Smith (and the Gaspars) feel about their secret, and highly sensitive, conversations with the police being revealed to all

All of these people came forward to put their information into the investigation, out of public duty and in the intent to see the case solved and justice brought to a little girl.
Why on earth do you imply that they would want to work in "secret", on "highly sensitive, conversations with the police" etc.
If anyone gives a statement to the police in the UK, it can be read by all and sundry at the police station, by lawyers, judges and eventually read out in court and before a jury whereupon it can be reported upon in public.
If the Smiths and Gaspars have spoken the truth as they see it, they will have nothing to hide, nor fear, unlike the McCs and their entourage who have told 'inconsistency after inconsistency'.
I don't understand how you would think they might consider they have something to hide.

by Over The Hill 17.11.13 18:56

There is a huge difference between witness statements being used in court in an active case (or passed between lawyers and police), and putting them online where 600 billion people can read what you said, particularly if its contents are rather, how shall we say, delicate. IMO it's a bit dubious, and I prefer the UK system (ie if the prosecution can't make a strong enough case to get it to court, it should sit in the files) but it may well affect the issue of defamation since, yes, all the information has been out there since 2008

by bobbin 17.11.13 19:02

Over The Hill wrote:There is huge difference between witness statements being used in court in an active case (or passed between lawyers and police), and putting it online where 600 billion people can read what you said, particularly if its contents are rather, how shall we say, delicate. IMO it's a bit dubious

I don't think it's a matter of opinions. It's a matter of public duty and the truth doesn't change according to how many people do or don't see it. Furthermore, the press has steadfastly prevented most of the information relating to this case getting into the public domain. I would like to think that 600 billion people had seen it. That way enough public pressure might be brought to get the politicians, and those seeking to keep this case covered up, forced to realise that the public will not let this case be 'white-washed'.

by bobbin 17.11.13 19:06

Over The Hill wrote:There is a huge difference between witness statements being used in court in an active case (or passed between lawyers and police), and putting them online where 600 billion people can read what you said, particularly if its contents are rather, how shall we say, delicate. IMO it's a bit dubious, and I prefer the UK system (ie if the prosecution can't make a strong enough case to get it to court, it should sit in the files) but it may well affect the issue of defamation since, yes, all the information has been out there since 2008

I hadn't seen your full post, to which I believe you added after 'a bit dubious'.
How can people giving their honest statements to police be guilty of defamation?

by sallypelt 17.11.13 19:12

Over The Hill wrote:There is a huge difference between witness statements being used in court in an active case (or passed between lawyers and police), and putting them online where 600 billion people can read what you said, particularly if its contents are rather, how shall we say, delicate. IMO it's a bit dubious, and I prefer the UK system (ie if the prosecution can't make a strong enough case to get it to court, it should sit in the files) but it may well affect the issue of defamation since, yes, all the information has been out there since 2008

OTH, at my last count of the world's population, there were only about 7.7 billion people. We would all be falling off the edge if there were 600 billion:Mrs:

by Over The Hill 17.11.13 19:22

Because the Portuguese legal system sees fit to publish them online, bobbin - ie put them into the public domain

That's why, in the UK, they are only passed between the relevant legal teams until it goes to court

If I knew a sensitive witness statement of mine was going to be published online if the case was shelved (ie the case wasn't strong enough to take to court) I would be tempted not to make the statement in the first place for fear of reprisals

And that would hinder the investigation, not help it

apologies for my miscalculation re the world's population, SallyP!

by bobbin 17.11.13 19:26

Over The Hill wrote:Because the Portuguese legal system sees fit to publish them online, bobbin - ie put them into the public domain

That's why, in the UK, they are only passed between the relevant legal teams until it goes to court

If I knew a sensitive witness statement of mine was going to be published online if the case was shelved (ie the case wasn't strong enough to take to court) I would be tempted not to make the statement in the first place for fear of reprisals

And that would hinder the investigation, not help it

If the media reported my statement before it was read out it court, the media would be in contempt of court

If the defendant was then found not guity, the media might also be guilty of defamation

And I would be terrified of any repercussions

But it's different in Portugal

apologies for my miscalculation re the world's population, SallyP!

So you would withhold your statement to the police if you felt it was 'sensitive' etc. Would this not be 'hindering' the investigation, withholding information?

by Over The Hill 17.11.13 19:31

If I felt the statement would only be revealed in court, probably not

But in the McCann case we have a situation in which the case wasn't considered strong enough to take to court, but the comments have been revealed to the public anyway

There's a danger that people might not pass on their suspicions to the police if this happened in the UK

by Daisy 17.11.13 19:36

Over The Hill wrote:Because the Portuguese legal system sees fit to publish them online, bobbin - ie put them into the public domain

That's why, in the UK, they are only passed between the relevant legal teams until it goes to court

If I knew a sensitive witness statement of mine was going to be published online if the case was shelved (ie the case wasn't strong enough to take to court) I would be tempted not to make the statement in the first place for fear of reprisals

And that would hinder the investigation, not help it

apologies for my miscalculation re the world's population, SallyP!

What, even if a little girls life is at stake? That's a very weak excuse if you ask me. Not that you did.

Log in for more topics