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

Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Tangled Web on 03.01.14 16:59

Re The Express article.

There's that 'disgraced' word again.

On the upside, the general public now know the book is called 'The Truth of the Lie' (and it was a bestseller - 120,000 copies sold), there's also a documentary to watch (already watched by 2.2 million people), they now know Amaral thinks MM died in the apartment and that the McCann's faked her abduction and all of the police files have been made public.

Think the numbers on pro-MM Facebook groups and fora are set to rise again...

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by suzyjohnson on 03.01.14 17:38

I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Seek truth on 03.01.14 17:40

@Tangled Web wrote:Re The Express article.

There's that 'disgraced' word again.

On the upside, the general public now know the book is called 'The Truth of the Lie' (and it was a bestseller - 120,000 copies sold), there's also a documentary to watch (already watched by 2.2 million people), they now know Amaral thinks MM died in the apartment and that the McCann's faked her abduction and all of the police files have been made public.

Think the numbers on pro-MM Facebook groups and fora are set to rise again...
Yes laugh 

They're calling him the disgraced cop, in other words disgraced would then also be the British police who also 
didn't believe the mccanns in the beginning, the British sniffer dogs and THE POLICE FILES that are pasted all over the Internet for The whole world to see!

Wonder if the mccanns knew that Portugal was going to put the files on the Internet?  Who's disgraced now?
 tongue

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by sallypelt on 03.01.14 17:41

@suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And let's not forget that lawyers do not work for nothing, and with the fund website "updating" how can they be sure they will get paid.

Just a thought!

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 17:49

@tiny wrote:Any one know if Mr Amaral has been refused too


Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 1h
Goncalo Amaral is also barred from giving evidence at #mccann libel trial which resumes in Lisbon on Tuesday with lawyers' closing remarks


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Montclair on 03.01.14 17:50

@Cristobell wrote:[copied over from other thread]

@Portia wrote:If so, here we have a ground for the appeal: we were not heard so we had no fair trail


I don't know if they will get away with that Portia as originally they were not going to appear, Gerry requested permission halfway through when he realised how badly their case was going.  They are probably bitterly disappointed - egotists that they are, they probably believed a last minute plea to the Judge would erase all the crap she has heard so far and turn things around.  

So if no more witnesses are to be heard, the final day will just consist of the Summing up by the lawyers for each party, as I understand it.

According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak. Therefore, there would have been no ground for appeal whatsoever.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Miraflores on 03.01.14 17:56

I notice how the Express talks about the McCanns getting Amiral's book banned, but not a word about the ban being overturned. Typical of our Press.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

...I'll report back 'to base' on Tuesday

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 18:24

Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can. 
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.01.14 18:28

@Montclair wrote:
According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by sallypelt on 03.01.14 18:31

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Montclair wrote:
According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Daisy on 03.01.14 18:37

parapono wrote:Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can. 
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono
Thank you Parapono, that's very good to know. Good luck in your quest.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Montclair on 03.01.14 18:49

@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Montclair wrote:
According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

Only if the judge agrees! This is a civil case not a criminal case and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 18:59

@Daisy wrote:
parapono wrote:Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can. 
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono
Thank you Parapono, that's very good to know. Good luck in your quest.
Thank you Daisy

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.01.14 19:04

Tony Bennett

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Sallypelt

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

Montclair

Only if the judge agrees! This is a civil case not a criminal case and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


REPLY: This is totally bizarre.

Apart from maybe North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and the Central African Republic, where else in the world apart from Portugal is one not allowed, in civil trials, to say anything in one's own defence, or 'only with the judge's permission'?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 19:17

Final note on Law
translation by Astro

The new Civil Procedure Code introduces a new means of evidence - the declarations by a party - in which the party itself [case of Gerry McCann and/or Gonçalo Amaral], on its own initiative, may request, until the start of oral allegations at first instance [closing arguments], to make a statement about facts in which the party intervened personally or of which the party has direct knowledge. The party that makes a statement is subject to the duty of cooperation and truth, which means that it must reply to everything that is asked, to submit to any necessary inspections and to provide everything that is requested from the party. The questioning of the party that makes a statement is led by the Judge, and the lawyers may only ask for clarifications. If, in its statements, the party confesses to any fact, that confession is valued in the files and with due effects, which is to say it is irreversible and has full probative force [it is considered evidence]. In the absence of a confession, the statements by the party are freely valued by the Court. in O “novo” Código de Processo Civil, newsletter by PLMJ lawyers, July 2013




http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/gerry-mccann-unable-to-testify-for.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by suzyjohnson on 03.01.14 19:21

@sallypelt wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And let's not forget that lawyers do not work for nothing, and with the fund website "updating" how can they be sure they will get paid.

Just a thought!

It is a thought sallypelt, how are they going to pay for everything from now on?

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 19:23

Seems the Judge has heard enough, has had enough.

I wonder what strategy lay behind the Mecs' approach to the ludicrous witness hearings.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by sallypelt on 03.01.14 19:27

This is interesting information:

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 Expres​sion(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

You can read it in full on this link: http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/are-libel-actions-in-portugal.html

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by suzyjohnson on 03.01.14 19:28

@suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And of course the fact that most of McCanns witnesses seemed to know everything about the case because 'the McCanns told them'

And of course, the obvious fact, that nobody knows what happened to MM, and on that basis, how can the McCanns be allowed to win a libel trial? For all the judge knows, Amaral might well be right. If the McCanns were awarded £1,000,000, is it likely that that money would ever be recoverable? At the present time there are too many unanswered questions in the case, that may be the main reason the judge has made the decision not to let the McCanns give evidence.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 19:32

If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by suzyjohnson on 03.01.14 19:35

Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)
Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Guest on 03.01.14 19:37

@suzyjohnson wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)
Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?
***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by suzyjohnson on 03.01.14 19:45

Châtelaine wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)
Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?
***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...
 Me neither

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Tangled Web on 03.01.14 19:57

Châtelaine wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)
Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?
***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...

And then they will have attracted major attention (hopefully) to 'issues' they wanted to 'disappear' oh the irony!!

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 03.01.14 20:33

@Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Sallypelt

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

Montclair

Only if the judge agrees! This is a civil case not a criminal case and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


REPLY: This is totally bizarre.

Apart from maybe North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and the Central African Republic, where else in the world apart from Portugal is one not allowed, in civil trials, to say anything in one's own defence, or 'only with the judge's permission'?

In this instance I tend to believe that the Judge has refused for one reason only.

And it would be more relevant if we turn our attention away from the odious duo, just for a moment. It could be that she refused THEM in order to refuse AMARAL. The reason for not wanting to hear him is IMO  far more interesting and promising…..  eyebrows 

The McCanns would LIKE to think it's all about them, their importance and right to air their imagined grievances. I'm wondering if this is all taking an intriguing turn.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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