Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

aquila wrote:

Nina wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Something in the trial is interfering with the case.

Or,something in the case is interfering with the trial.

If I were a gambling person I'd probably stick a bet on Nina's remark.

Could it be possible that the McCanns have been made arguidos again now that the PJ have re-opened the case.  It's all gone so quiet, no morning TV or newspaper interviews about the joint SY and PJ investigations from either of them.

Maybe the libel trial can't go ahead if they have been made arguidos, just a wild guess on my part of course.

Casey5 wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Oh, it seems MM is no longer alive and never was after 3rd May therefore maybe just maybe the libel trial might possibly not make any sense whatsoever. We better halt it and decide
what you do under these circumstances... 

That's not a possibility HelenMeg. The judge will collate all of the evidence and make a judgement based on that. The McCanns will either win the case or lose the case based on the Judge's interpretation of all of the evidence she has heard. Madeleine has not been proven to be alive or dead; that would involve a criminal trial not a civil one, so the libel trial could not be scrapped by the judge.
The Scotland Yard investigation should have no bearing on the libel trial at all.

Thanks Casey5 . Interesting to think that McCanns could actually win the libel trial and then subsequently get sent down for concealing a death / body... it has gone so quite regarding an explanation for the 'interrupted' libel trial that there must be something going on behind the scenes that is not at all straightforward.

It's all so mysteriously quiet.  It has been my belief that 'things' would start moving quickly once the libel trial was over, and now I'm wondering if certain parties have gotten fed up of waiting.  All speculation though, I don't know any more than anyone else.  The delay might just as well be unrelated to anything external to the case. More than anything, I feel sorry for Sr. Amaral, having to wait so long to clear his name and get his life back.

But I'd be very surprised if the McCanns win this trial, based on what I've read so far.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:It's all so mysteriously quiet.  It has been my belief that 'things' would start moving quickly once the libel trial was over, and now I'm wondering if certain parties have gotten fed up of waiting.  All speculation though, I don't know any more than anyone else.  The delay might just as well be unrelated to anything external to the case.  More than anything, I feel sorry for Sr. Amaral, having to wait so long to clear his name and get his life back.

But I'd be very surprised if the McCanns win this trial, based on what I've read so far.

Dr Amarals' name has never been sullied. There is no need for it to be cleared.

It's not the victims, but the perpetrators of evil which are to blame

Dr Amaral, for one, is blameless

Portia wrote:
Dr Amarals' name has never been sullied. There is no need for it to be cleared.

It's not the victims, but the perpetrators of evil which are to blame

Dr Amaral, for one, is blameless

Yes, very true Portia.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:It's all so mysteriously quiet.  It has been my belief that 'things' would start moving quickly once the libel trial was over, and now I'm wondering if certain parties have gotten fed up of waiting.  All speculation though, I don't know any more than anyone else.  The delay might just as well be unrelated to anything external to the case.  More than anything, I feel sorry for Sr. Amaral, having to wait so long to clear his name and get his life back.

But I'd be very surprised if the McCanns win this trial, based on what I've read so far.

Perhaps they're waiting for Pike to pass his psychology exams   

tigger wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:.

Perhaps they're waiting for Pike  to  pass his psychology exams     

Perhaps they're just hoping he doesn't turn.

Pardon me, this may have already been posted and if it has I apologize.
I read that the the parents may have offered to settle with Amaral out of court and that they have a six months to agree on a settlement. Does anyone know if this holds any truth?

I think the McCanns offered to accept a settlement from DrA. He refused.

mysterion wrote:I think the McCanns offered to accept a settlement from DrA. He refused.

What source did you hear that from?

Loving Mom wrote:

mysterion wrote:I think the McCanns offered to accept a settlement from DrA. He refused.

What source did you hear that from?

Just found this in a hurry haven't read it.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/mccanns-ask-for-extrajudicial-settlement.html?m=1

The McCanns proposed that Dr Amaral and his co-defendants pay them off.  There were no takers a year ago and there are unlikely to be any now.

Dr. Amarall wishes to clear his name, this is not just about money earned from the book he has written, it is a matter of honour - a concept impossible to grasp for those who took him to court for libel.

The truth of the lie is a book of facts, proven facts.

As far as I can see from the proceedings so far, libel has barely been mentioned whereas a succession of under-qualified witnesses for the prosecution have attempted to prove Dr. Amaral's book has caused  the McCanns sleepless nights.

I stand to be corrected but I haven't seen anything put forward by the prosecution that can be seen as libel.

So why is it still called a libel trial?  It's about money and is it also possible that the book 'madekeine'  hasn't been the success that was anticipated?

Long before the book was written, December 2007, film rights were discussed. We heard no more about it, but in their money-gathering haste did they sign away the film rights?  So that would explain why there hasn't been any mention of a film of  the book.  Transworld may just have broken even on the book.

As I see it:  a brief summary of proceedings in respect of the libel trial to date:

Having made a hasty departure in September 2007, the McCanns' first return to Portugal took place some two years later when they made a day trip, not as one might have thought, by way of a poignant journey to the place where they last saw their daughter alive but to Lisbon, for the sole purpose of consulting lawyers with regard to libel proceedings against Dr Amaral's book 'The Truth Of The Lie'. 

This consultation resulted in a 37 or 38 page writ for libel being served on Dr Amaral, his publisher, the TV company who made a documentary based on the book, and their distributors in 2010.

No doubt the McCanns were greatly encouraged by the ease with which they were able to obtain an injunction from an inexperienced judge banning sales of the book and ordering their recall from retailers in 2010, but Dr Amaral's subsequent appeal against this decision resulted in a well reasoned judgement from the Appellate Court which lifted the injuction and, furthermore, found that not only was the content of his book not libellous but that, if anyone's reputation had been defamed, it was Dr Amaral who had been impugned.   

Not ones to give up easily, the McCanns' sought to reinstate the injunction by appealing to the Supreme Court of Portugal which dismissed their appeal stating, in a few brief words, that they saw no reason not to uphold the sound judgement of the Appellate Court.  

These two appeals having been something of sidebar, the proceedings continued with the McCanns' seeking to negotiate a settlement in January 2013, to which end the Court allowed a period of 6 months for the parties to, for want of a better phrase, 'resolve their differences'.  One can only imagine the terms on which the McCanns attempted to make the case go away while, no doubt, insisting that any settlement give the appearance of them having won hands down but, suffice it to say, Dr Amaral and his co-defendants were not prepared to agree.  

Under a change of judge, the trial resumed in September 2013 and, having heard witnesses from both sides over the course of the intervening months, 7 January 2014 was set for closing arguments.  However, some days prior to that date counsel for the McCanns asked for a postponement and as yet, some 6 weeks later, no indication has been given either as to why Isabel Duarte found it necessary to request a delay or when the trial will resume.  

While it amuses me to think that Izzy's not willing to continue flogging a dead horse until her fees are paid up to date and beyond, I suspect there may be more to this delay than that which we haven't been told, so to speak, and I intend to hazard a guess or two in a later post.  In the meantime if anyone knows where I might set sight on a copy of the writ, I'd be much obliged if they can provide a link or pm me.

Snipped from UTs last post -

"
While it amuses me to think that Izzy's not willing to continue flogging a dead horse until her fees are paid up to date and beyond, I suspect there may be more to this delay than that which we haven't been told, so to speak, and I intend to hazard a guess or two in a later post.  In the meantime if anyone knows where I might set sight on a copy of the writ, I'd be much obliged if they can provide a link or pm me. "

I also think there is more to the delay than we are being told.   Look forward to reading your further posts.

I did not know that the McCann’s lawyer Isobel Duarte had asked for a postponement after the January hearing. That is very interesting.

You would think that all the lawyers involved, and remember the McCanns are not only suing Dr Amaral, would want this long running saga concluded ASAP if only to get paid! 

It must be very difficult for the lawyers involved to schedule their other cases when the hearings have been intermittent and dates have to be agreed that suit all the lawyers and the witnesses, some of whom are not based in Portugal.

Think of the additional time taken when the lawyers have to reread their files/prepare new material because of the delays. The costs are mounting and it will be expensive for whoever loses this case.

I can empathise with all the lawyers in this case; they must be very frustrated.  


When I worked full-time as an accountant, clients sometimes didn’t provide all the necessary information and documents to enable their accounts to be prepared or their tax affairs finalised  so I had to stop and start and time on their account mounted up.  It was very frustrating. Then they would give me some more documents but sometimes I still didn’t have everything so I could prepare a set of accounts I could professionally stand over. I think all accountants have clients like this; those who feel that if they provide  lots of paper that is good enough.

Is it usual for a libel trial to be undertaken whilst there is a criminal investigation in relation to the same subject matter ?

Hi, Enid. As far as I know there never was a hearing in January (7th)
In the days before Isobel Duarte handed in some papers re Alan Pike, and Amaral handed his WOC question. Amaral did not ask for a postponement, Duarte did though. 
Judge postponed the proceedings for fifteen days.

All from memory

kindest regards
parapono

Thanks parapono. 

You are right; the hearing scheduled for January did not take place. The January date would have been set back in November (?) and would have been convenient for all parties, so why did the McCann's lawyer not find it convenient? 

Or was she instructed by her clients to seek an adjournment? 

The judge must want this over as much as all the lawyers involved so it is interesting that she agreed to an adjournment. The judge must have been provided with an adequate reason for the adjournment to enable her to grant one within the rules of the Portuguese legal system.

Enid O'Dowd wrote:

You would think that all the lawyers involved, and remember the McCanns are not only suing Dr Amaral, would want this long running saga concluded ASAP if only to get paid! 

I have stated on many occasions that I know less than nothing about libel proceedings, but from what I have read over the yrs. its a rich man's privilige. On this basis, I would assume that before any Law Firm undertake a case, they would demand up front money, because I don't think the likes of the late George Carmen QC would have undertaken any cases on a pro bono, or no win, no fee basis.

I can't see the case being delayed because  either party are suffering from a lack of funds, because the judge would simply instruct the relevant party to put up or withdraw. I also can't see it having anything whatsoever to do with enquiries relating to the ongoing criminal investigation as the two matters although loosely connected are in fact entirely different issues with separate objectives. T'would appear that like the Lord, the Portugese civil justice system works in mysterious ways.

Great post, UltimaThule, thank you! :flower:

parapono wrote:Hi, Enid. As far as I know there never was a hearing in January (7th)
In the days before Isobel Duarte handed in some papers re Alan Pike, and Amaral handed his WOC question. Amaral did not ask for a postponement, Duarte did though. 
Judge postponed the proceedings for fifteen days.

All from memory

kindest regards
parapono

This is my recollection too, parapono, with one subtle difference: after Isobel Duarte submitted a document in relation to Alan Pike and requested a 'postponement' (by which I assume she requested an adjournment), counsel for Dr Amaral asked the Court to evaulate the legitimacy of Madeleine being named as a plaintiff on the McCanns' writ given that, as a Ward of Court, they do not have parental responsibility for her.  

The judge then gave the defence 15 days to submit documentation verifying Madeleine's status as a Ward of Court but did not stipulate a date on which the trial would resume.

Cheers @worriedmum - and apologies to all for the aberrant apostrophes in my earlier post which was written after very little sleep.

I've copied and pasted this from the other recent libel thread and hope that haroldd2 will join us:

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
  ultimaThule Today at 10:19 pm

haroldd2 wrote:Has the libel trial been adjourned until a given date? If so, until when? If not, is it usual in Portuguese civil trials not to give an adjournment date?

Was a reason given for adjourning?

I take the view that if the McCanns lose the libel case they'll be wide open to people suing them in the English civil courts (and indeed in other countries) for misleading them into donating money. A loss to GA will not necessarily give grounds for a criminal prosecution for fraud, but it will for a civil action for tort.

Might there have been some diplomatic intervention?

Presumably if the case is being tried by a judge rather than a jury, then there's no reason for any legal arguments to be in secret - unless someone, who may not necessarily be either of the parties in the case, has made a good case to the contrary.

We seem to have adjourned to this thread, harold: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8887-libel-trial-7th-jan-postponed-confirmed and if you check out p.22 there's a brief history of the trial to dat.

I can't see how losing will open any floodgates for claims against the McCanns either in the UK or elsewhere because Dr Amaral's book merely posits a theory and if he and his co-defendants win the case it can't be seen as evidence, or proof positive, that Madeleine is dead.

The proceedings have been heard in open court because the McCanns refused the defendants' offer for the case to be heard in private and, from what can be ascertained from the transcripts of the proceedings produced by Anne Guedes who has attended throughout, there have been no closed sessions for the purpose of hearing legal arguments.   

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Might there have been some diplomatic intervention'? 'Intervention' in what?  

After posting here, I'll copy this to the other thread and if you respond there it will avoid any confusion caused by 2 threads on the same subject running concurrently.

ultimaThule wrote:I've copied and pasted this from the other recent libel thread and hope that haroldd2 will join us:

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
  ultimaThule Today at 10:19 pm

haroldd2 wrote:Has the libel trial been adjourned until a given date? If so, until when? If not, is it usual in Portuguese civil trials not to give an adjournment date?

Was a reason given for adjourning?

I take the view that if the McCanns lose the libel case they'll be wide open to people suing them in the English civil courts (and indeed in other countries) for misleading them into donating money. A loss to GA will not necessarily give grounds for a criminal prosecution for fraud, but it will for a civil action for tort.

Might there have been some diplomatic intervention?

Presumably if the case is being tried by a judge rather than a jury, then there's no reason for any legal arguments to be in secret - unless someone, who may not necessarily be either of the parties in the case, has made a good case to the contrary.

We seem to have adjourned to this thread, harold: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8887-libel-trial-7th-jan-postponed-confirmed and if you check out p.22 there's a brief history of the trial to dat.

I can't see how losing will open any floodgates for claims against the McCanns either in the UK or elsewhere because Dr Amaral's book merely posits a theory and if he and his co-defendants win the case it can't be seen as evidence, or proof positive, that Madeleine is dead.

The proceedings have been heard in open court because the McCanns refused the defendants' offer for the case to be heard in private and, from what can be ascertained from the transcripts of the proceedings produced by Anne Guedes who has attended throughout, there have been no closed sessions for the purpose of hearing legal arguments.   

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Might there have been some diplomatic intervention'? 'Intervention' in what?  

After posting here, I'll copy this to the other thread and if you respond there it will avoid any confusion caused by 2 threads on the same subject running concurrently.

Hi Ultima and thanks for this. I hope I'm now in the right thread! I wasn't aware of Anne Guedes's (occasionally periphrastic) write-ups, so thanks too for referring me to these.

The reason I think a libel victory for GA will open the floodgates for civil actions against the McCanns in the English jurisdiction is that it will have been established – if he wins – that it's not libellous in Portugal to say that the abduction was faked. The oft-heard line that it can't be libellous to express an opinion is not true. If you write that it's your opinion that someone of good character has committed a crime, then that can certainly be libellous. Ask George Monbiot or Sally Bercow. If the McCanns lose the libel case, it means, if we trace it through, that a judge decided it's reasonable to think there's a good chance they might have faked the abduction. If they did, then all their requests for money will have been both tortious and criminal. GA will not have proved anything (OK I am translating from English law here), but I would have thought a civil claimant in England could find a way to quote the Portuguese result and get it given some weight in court. They could even call Amaral as a witness - not of what happened in the Portuguese court, but of what he found during his investigation and what conclusions he drew from it.  There's no ban on hearsay evidence in an English civil court. And they only beat the DNA test by the skin of their teeth. That might in itself get them off on a criminal charge, but would they have enough to win a civil case? 

And it wouldn't cost much! If someone has donated say £10, they could sue in the small claims court. They could be a person who has never published anything critical of the McCanns and who is not at risk of being countersued and risking a large financial loss.

By asking whether there might have been diplomatic intervention, I mean might there have been intervention from British diplomats or consular officials which led the judge not to set a date for reconvening the court. I ask because I don't know how common it is in Portugal for a judge in this kind of trial to order an adjournment that's open-ended, and because British officials are known to have been involved in getting GA removed from the case. One of the reasons I've become interested in matters McCann is because there seems to have been big influence wielded in support of them – so big that it can't be explained by a few million pounds in the fund or even the support of characters such as Kennedy and Smethurst.

On the matter of legal arguments, I'm not sure whether meetings with counsel in the judge's chambers would have to be mentioned in the courtroom.

Last question - have all the people in Team McCann in the courtroom been identified? I'm just going by the mugshots and generic silhouettes here. Somebody is definitely going to be reporting from the courtroom back to Britgov. Angus McBride's background looks interesting, even if he does sound a bit like someone who taps his nose in the pub and says he works for the government but can't say in what capacity. I mean how can someone "specialise" in "all aspects of criminal defence"? They can't. But maybe once we've stopped laughing... His involvement with the Edmund Lawson/Michael Peat cover-up inquiry for the royal family might warrant a closer look.

Very interesting post harold2 - thank you.