The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 08.11.13 15:16

I wondered a bit about that too. Maybe after the ban distributors and shops were forced to return non-sold copies? And this is an attempt to start trying to calculate the loss in revenue because of that ... ? I don't know. Perhaps the publishers have slightly other interests than Dr. Amaral? Time will learn, I hope.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Truthandjustice on 08.11.13 15:27

Perhaps they just want to know how much money he made and whether it is worth another litigation.

Truthandjustice

Posts : 237
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Monty Heck on 08.11.13 15:54

@Mélusine wrote:I wonder why so many lawyers' questions related to returned copies of the book. Because of the injunction? What were they going after? That not all books were withdrawn?
Possibly to establish how much revenue was generated by sales, and by extension the ability of the defendants to make financial reparations if they lose the case. Although it would surely be simple enough to establish revenue from the publisher's accounts?

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by aquila on 08.11.13 16:01

@Monty Heck wrote:
@Mélusine wrote:I wonder why so many lawyers' questions related to returned copies of the book. Because of the injunction? What were they going after? That not all books were withdrawn?
Possibly to establish how much revenue was generated by sales, and by extension the ability of the defendants to make financial reparations if they lose the case. Although it would surely be simple enough to establish revenue from the publisher's accounts?
I'm not sure that it's clear there is still nothing to stop the sale of Sr Amaral's book. There seems to be some sort of 'caveat' placed upon the distribution.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 08.11.13 16:47

@Mélusine wrote:I wonder why so many lawyers' questions related to returned copies of the book. Because of the injunction? What were they going after? That not all books were withdrawn?
 
Probably the greedy McCannss not wanting to miss a single Euro.
 
Don't seem like relevant questions when the premise of the case is Libel, no questions about intent, belief in content, perception of damage to McCanns and so on. Seems like a waste of a court day.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 08.11.13 17:34

@ultimaThule wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote: [...] Ah, the return of the famous Pedro Silva.  I've been wondering what's happened to him. 

But can this Pedro Silva of 'Lisbon, Portugal' be one and the same as the Pedro Silva of Rothley, Leicestershire?  I think we should be told. big grin
***
You mean the one pretending to be Portuguese, but cannot translate or spell in that language ...?
"My friends" ...
One and the same, Chatelaine meu amigo.laughat
Meu amiga perhaps?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 08.11.13 17:39

@Portia wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote: [...] One and the same, Chatelaine meu amigo.laughat
Meu amiga perhaps?
***
Portia, darling, don't nitpick. I am an amiga, but with a lot of testosteron big grin

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 08.11.13 17:40

For the life of me, I cannot follow the Plaintiffs' line of questioning

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 08.11.13 17:40

Châtelaine wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote: [...] One and the same, Chatelaine meu amigo.laughat
Meu amiga perhaps?
***
Portia, darling, don't nitpick. I am an amiga, but with a lot of testosteron big grin
Tudo bem, tudo bem

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Libel Trial - Day 8 - Witness no 2

Post by Guest on 16.11.13 9:18

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 2
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 2:45pm) Luis Froes is a Partner at Outsider Films Ltd. He was General Manager at Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia between April 2008 and September 2012, in which period the Amaral documentary was produced. His evidence relates to the background in which the documentary was produced.
Please note the following:


  • VCFilmes S.A. is the Company which produced the documentary Maddie: The Truth of the Lie based on the book by Dr Gonçalo Amaral (GA) and directed by Carlos Coelho da Silva.
 


  • The rights of edition and distribution of this documentary in DVD format were ceded to VC Multimédia S.A., this Company therefore being their representative as regards the exploration or commercialisation of the rights of television broadcast or transmission of this documentary in foreign countries.
 


  • The reproduction and editing were authorised by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia to the companyPresslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A., owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã (CdM) by means of a contract established between both parties, under which terms, the DVDs, their covers and packaging would be produced on account, by order and under the responsibility of Presslivre, to be distributed and commercialised jointly with said newspaper.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro asks the witness if he recalls the details of the distribution contract concerning the DVD.
LF doesn't remember.
The Judge – Who signed the contract?
LF says he did, but he doesn't know about the international contracts.
1) The Defence lawyers.
a) Valentim de Carvalho’s (VC) lawyer, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the first to question the witness.
VC Did you take part in the Providência Cautelar (injunction judgement) hearings?
LF - Yes, but I don't remember when I took the stand.
VC refers to the DVD audiovisual adaptation of GA's book which was commercialised at the end of 2009. Was it edited by Valentim de Carvalho?
LF - Yes
VC - Who edited the DVD version which went on sale?
LF - VC Multimédia distributed. I don't know who edited.
VC - I'm talking of the copies of the DVD.
LF VC Multimédia edited them.
VC - Wasn't the Correio da Manhã in charge of them?
LF – They had to be distributed.
VC - Who commercialised them?
LF - For me, commercialising or distributing is the same thing. The unique contract that existed was through the CdM.
The Court Clerk is asked to show the contract to the witness.
VC - The edition was made by the CdM.
LF - It was the CdM who sold the DVD to the public.
VC - Did VC commercialise the DVD?
LF says that for him "editing" is "editing" (montar)
(Note: the Portuguese "editar" that has been translated "edit" means establish the reproduction, publication and diffusion of a work. The Portuguese, as other languages, uses "montar" for "editing" a film).
VC - Who created the cover, the packaging?
LF says it was VC Multimédia .
VC - Then you've not looked at the contract? Do you have an issue with Valentim de Carvalho? In Court?
LF says he has.
The Judge – Are you the executing or the executed one?
LF says the action is against VC.
LF says that there is a problem of definition: VC produced a documentary, and then looked for the best way to distribute it and found CdM.
VC - Who created the cover and the packaging? Who was responsible for this?
LF says he doesn't remember. Normally the producer would do that, but in this case it might have not happened this way.
VC - What about the silver seals with the registration number?
LF doesn't know.
VC - Do you know how many copies were made?
LF says he knows.
VC - Do you know how many copies were destroyed?
LF says that all copies left over were destroyed.
VC - Was there a new edition of the DVD?
LF thinks "no".
VC – The documentary appeared with subtitles on the Internet.
LF says that everything, all sorts of things appear on the Web.
VC – But with subtitles?
LF doesn't remember.
VC makes a request to suspend this witness' testimony without prejudicing the continuity of the trial, because the witness requires to study the documents before being questioned further. Only Dra Duarte objects. The Judge tells the witness that he must return to give further evidence on the 27th November at 9:30 am.
VC requests that the examination of the witness continues but on another subject.
VC - Don't you remember seeing that documentary on the Web?
LF says he already stated in Court in January 2010 that he didn't.
VC - Do you think it could be that documentary?
LF says that there is no control over the release of films on the Internet.
VC - Did VC Multimédia already have the film subtitled?
LF answers "no".
VC - Did VC Multimédia use a system to prevent pirating on the Internet?
LF thinks they don't. He adds it's not rare to see a subtitled series on the Internet before they're broadcast on TV.
VC's next question relates to the Providência Cautelar or Injunction but the Judge objects on the basis that it is not relevant, the main action being the present hearing.
VC now alludes to the watermark, the documentary having been sold on the international market.
VC - Did the international sales concern TV channels or the DVD market? Was there edition and sale of DVDs in foreign countries?
LF says he doesn't remember.
VC - Who bought the documentary?
LF says that various TV channels bought it.
VC - Was the DVD protected by a watermark?
LF says it was normal that it was.
VC answers a question by the Judge about the watermark and explains that the original documentary is supposed to have a bandwidth (a signal processing).
b) Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr. Santos de Oliveira.
SO - As General Director, you had to have knowledge concerning the distribution of the DVD.
LF - Yes.
SO - Weren't you supposed also to know how many copies were distributed?
LF says he doesn't remember.
SO - You knew how the DVD was created; shouldn't you also know what kind of protection was applied to the copies?
LF says he didn't have to know that.
SO - Could some alteration be made without your knowing about it?
LF says "no".
SO - Did you know whether there was protection against pirate copying?
LF says that practically there's always a way to bypass any protection.
2) The Plaintiffs' lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.
ID - Where was the watermark?
LF says it was in the DVDs sold in foreign countries.
ID - Which countries?
LF says he doesn't know, since he didn't sell them, he doesn't remember. He adds that the only entity that commercialised the DVD was the CdM.
The Judge asks if the unsold DVDs were destroyed.
LF says "yes", all those which weren't sold were destroyed.
The Judge asks the witness how he knows that.
LF - I was told so.
The Judge – Who told you?
LF - The CdM.
The Judge - Is this a normal procedure?
LF - It is.
The Judge - When there's no further expectation of selling additional copies, then, before destroying them, do they let you know that they are about to destroy them?
LF - Yes, the CdM announced it beforehand.
Evidence ends.
Note
This witness previously took the stand in the Providência Cautelar (Temporary Injunction) hearings.
Civil Court decision in the Injunction
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by Guest on 16.11.13 16:35

@aquila wrote:
@Monty Heck wrote:
@Mélusine wrote:I wonder why so many lawyers' questions related to returned copies of the book. Because of the injunction? What were they going after? That not all books were withdrawn?
Possibly to establish how much revenue was generated by sales, and by extension the ability of the defendants to make financial reparations if they lose the case. Although it would surely be simple enough to establish revenue from the publisher's accounts?
I'm not sure that it's clear there is still nothing to stop the sale of Sr Amaral's book. There seems to be some sort of 'caveat' placed upon the distribution.
So it seems. 

When in Coimbra a fortnight ago, I asked in a bookshop; The first edition had sold out in no time. One or more further editions arrived (?) but at a certain moment orders came from their main office to return every copy held in stock. They complied. They are aware the injunction was overturned by the Portuguese appellate courts, and were wondering why no new copies had been sent them. The shop manager thought that perhaps the McCs had appealed to a European forum, and that as a consequence of that, his organisation would not sell, pending the outcome. He didn't know. But the book had been a great success, and the injunction had cost him, and he figured it must have cost dr Amaral a fortune.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by haroldd on 18.11.13 23:42

The libel trial doesn't seem to be getting reported much in the British media. But there was this in the Daily Star, which surely can only have come from the McCanns' organisation:

headline: "Friends fear for frail and tired Kate McCann"

strapline: "FEARS grew for Kate McCann’s health last night after she looked gaunt and tired at a charity event"

photo: KM in front of sport-like backdrop advertising "Missing People"

caption: "FRAIL: Kate looked tired and weary at the charity gala"

1st para: "The 45-year-old admitted she’s been left exhausted by the six-year search for missing daughter Madeleine."

2nd para: "Looking painfully thin, she told a fundraiser for Missing People she had been through a 'tricky couple of months'."

And that's probably more than most people will read.

Next paras: "Former GP Kate said there are times she wants to vanish herself and added: 'The pain continues, the agonising days and nights without news'."

"Friends fear her and husband Gerry’s libel case against former Portuguese police chief Gonzalo Amaral is hitting her health."

So she won't be giving evidence in Lisbon, then? She accuses a man of libelling her, demands he pay her a lot of money for the damage he has done to her reputation, tries to silence him, and...well, is she going to go to court to face his legal team and the judge who is presiding over the trial of her case, or not? The Daily Star seem to take a 'poor Kate' position on Gonzalo Amaral's obvious right to defend the case the McCs have brought against him. Poor Kate who is having to put up with the terrible proceedings in the libel case she herself has brought. I mean how rich is that? I wonder how someone whose health is so fragile can be up to attending a charity gala in the first place. Why force herself? Hasn't she got friends who can advise her to look after her own health rather than make charity appearances?

But IF she is guilty of what Gonzalo Amaral has said he thinks she is, THEN the image she has presented of herself to the world for several years - as a loving mother undergoing horrendous and open-ended emotional pain because of a monstrous crime committed against her young daughter - is fake and utterly opposite to a reality in which she is a despicable amoral liar who deserves to be jailed for her crimes and whom most decent people would shun for many many years. There are very few if any parallels to the scale of just how opposite the image would have been from the reality. And IF that is so, then physical illness would not come as a surprise. So I have to say: Mrs McCann, if you believe this man Mr Amaral has wronged you, go ahead and have your day in court - give it your absolute best shot. It is not as if you lack the financial means. Demonstrate that you deserve a reputation other than what Mr Amaral's work has, in many people's minds, given you. Or withdraw your case because it is too weak to have a chance of success. Either one or the other.

The libel case is all about her and her husband's reputation, and whether it has been damaged by the spreading of untruths and unfair speculation about her. And yet still the Daily Star insist:

"The McCanns (...) are suing Amaral, 56, over his false claims Maddie died and they covered up her death when the three-year-old vanished from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz."

Except that whether or not the claims are false is one of the main issues before the court.

The newspaper would never be able to get away with that last statement if the libel case was being tried by a jury in England - as their legal department must know very well. 

When is the verdict expected to be in?

haroldd

Posts : 37
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5TH NOVEMBER TRIAL UPDATES - Please post here

Post by ultimaThule on 20.11.13 1:38

At the rate the trial has progressed, I think it unlikely the case will be concluded before Christmas if the judge grants the applications put before the court a month or so ago.

In the meantime, I've added a response below to another of the ongoing libel trial threads and reproduce it here for information:

Hot off the press: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/disgraced-madeleine-mccann-detective-must-2810179

As far as I'm aware, the court hearing scheduled for yesterday was postponed until 27 November. 

I'm wondering if the judge has handed down her decision in the matter of Dr Amaral and the McCanns' applications to speak as witnesses and has also made the above request.  

If not, I find it odd that the judge is not asking for similar declaration by the three other defendants who've profited from the sale of 'The truth of the lie' - but, as the Mirror is not the most accurate court reporter, perhaps she has.

In any event, I expect there's more to this than the Mirror story has it.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Witness No 3 - 5th November

Post by Guest on 20.11.13 9:36

Grateful thanks to Anne Guedes for this -



The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 3:30pm) António Paulo Antunes dos Santos is a Lawyer and post-graduate in Communication Law specialising in the field of Intellectual Property Rights. He is currently the Chief Executive of the Federação Editores de Videogramas (FEVIP), a Portuguese Association which represents the interests of its affiliate members in the coordination of the national programme against audiovisual piracy. He is also a former Polícia Judiciária Inspector.
Up until 2009, VCFilmes was an affiliate member of FEVIP.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro – Do you know what this trial is about?
AS says he remembers the issue of the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing).
The Judge – Do you know Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does, they were colleagues in the Policia Judiciaria for some years and they occasionally talk to each other. He adds that, as a juridical consultant, he helped GA concerning the contract with G&P and the rights related to the documentary's production by VCFilmes.
The judge raises the issue of confidentiality, but AS says he was not Gonçalo Amaral’s lawyer.
It is established that there is professional confidentiality covering the issue of the contracts, but questions can be asked concerning other matters. This limitation will be observed.
The defence lawyer for VCFilmes, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
VC Did you know GA before the book was published?
AS answers that he met GA at the PJ. Though their areas were different, they worked together for some time and had a good relationship. He says that he left the PJ in 1991 in order to lead a program for the protection of authors against the violation of their rights.
VC - Do you know the book by Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does.
VC - This book was the basis for a documentary, it was adapted into a film that was broadcast by TVI Have you watched it?
AS says he did. He adds that he bought the DVD with a copy of the Correio da Manhã.
VC - Do you remember when that was?
AS says it was in 2009.
VC - Apart from the version broadcast by TVI, have you knowledge of any copy made of this audio visual work?
AS – No legal one. He adds that an illegal reproduction appeared on the Internet on a certain site. He says that a complaint was lodged with the PJ.
VC - Was it a Portuguese site?
AS says he doesn't know who the webmaster was, but that the site was a Portuguese. He adds that the pirated copy had subtitles in English.
VC - Did VCFilmes put this documentary on-line?
AS says that they didn't, they were the victims of a fraud and started an action against the hackers.
VC - Did your association (FEVIP) protest against foreign sites?
AS says "no".
VC - Was VCFilmes damaged in the process?
AS - Of course they were. If people have free access to the documentary on the Web, it represents a significant loss of clients.
VC - Are you sure that VCFilmes didn't authorise this?
AS - Absolutely.
VC - Have you some knowledge of the Criminal Process in the Madeleine case?
AS says he knows some parts of it but none in particular.
VC - Have you seen, in the documentary, parts that weren't in the Criminal Inquiry?
AS answers "no".
VC - What about the facts themselves?
AS says he doesn't know the details, but he thinks that what is in the book is in the Criminal Inquiry. He adds that GA's book analyses the case from the perspective of the investigator, namely, Gonçalo Amaral.
VC - But this perspective ended up not being confirmed.
AS says he doesn't understand what the lawyer means.
VC - What is the conclusion of the book?
AS - The evidence established at that determinate time allowed for some conclusions. The shelving of the case was months afterwards. The book, which was published afterwards, might have divergence points, but it clearly states that there is case for further investigations.
Evidence ends.
Note
The witness was consulted by the 8th Committee (education, science and culture) of the Parliament about the Cinema and Audio-visual Law on the 2 July 2012
http://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=37048 
About the testimony of this witness in the Providência Cautelar (injunction hearing)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html  (10:32 am)

About the Court decision on the temporary injunction (February 2010

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum