Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

ultimaThule wrote:
Nevertheless, it would seem to me that in the event of proceedings being brought in the criminal courts, the witnesses for the defence will not differ greatly from those who took the stand in Lisbon.

In a criminal trial, witnesses are not permitted to give hearsay evidence, so NONE of the ones who appeared in Lisbon would be allowed. Not one.

ultimaThule wrote:If, as I suspect, the Court/judge is 'evaluating' the Wardship, it's unlikely there will be anything to report for some time as the ponderous nature of communication between the courts of different countries, together with the need for all documents to be translated, can be a lengthy process and additional time will be required to give all of the information received due consideration in law.

The McCanns' libel claim against Goncalo Amaral, TVi etc. includes a claim BY Madeleine for libel damages, which is made ON HER BEHALF by the McCanns.

Even in this extraordinary case of extraordinary events, this is one of the most extraordinary libel claims ever made, surely?

Suppose the Court made an award to Madeleine? - on the basis, presumably, that she is alive and that she would have been returned to her parents a lot sooner had not 'that man' published 'that book' (or 'piece of work' as I think Clarence Mitchell once called it).

Suppose for the sake of argument that the court finds the case proved and orders Goncalo Amaral and TVi to pay Madeleine 100,000 euros (I think that the McCanns actually claimed more than that for her).

Who is the money to be paid to?

The McCanns?

A trust fund held by the McCanns?

A trust fund held by a Court?

Or where?

And what happens if she is never found?

What happens to the money?

Suppose she is found - dead - what happens to the money then?

Is the money returned to Goncalo Amaral or TVi?

In the unlikley event that the McCanns know more about all this than they've said, then what happens?

Even to ask these questions tends to reveal the utter absurdity of this claim.

The McCanns' claim for damages is one thing.

But a claim BY Madeleine FOR Madeleine? - very strange.

This court case has now lasted 4 years and 9 months.

'That book' has been freely on sale in two or three dozen countries since the October 2010 Portuguese Appeal Court ruling.

An English translation of it is freely available on the internet for anyone who is really interested.

There is a procedure known to English law where a case can be declared closed by a court on the basis of 'the effluxion of time', i.e. 'this case has gone on for far too long'.

I wonder if Portugal has such an equivalent?

In such circumstaances, each side would probably bear their own costs, unless it can be shown that one party or the other is wholly or mainly responsible for the delays.

And, further, what happens if one side 'wins'?

Will there be an appeal?

There have been THREE appeals already in this case, with Amaral ahead of the McCanns 2-1 at the moment...

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the trial has collapsed.  As Tony pointed out, the claim for Madeleine is absurd, it was actually 250,000 Euros, the main claim is 1.25m Euros, 250,000 each 'and they are five' as Isabel gleefully told the reporters when the trial began.

New evidence has emerged that is damning to the McCanns's claim, and we do not know what evidence has emerged 'behind the scenes' - SY are clearly not looking for a live and findable child.

I think the mood of Isabel Duarte in the final days of the trial is a huge signifier.  She was clearly angry - possibly at Gerry for charging in with his offer to speak as a witness.  The trial was a circus, and showed the greed and vindictiveness of her clients, and imo, her clients were not taking her advice.  That she missed a day's trial is astonishing, and as I remember it, her colleague had the task of putting in Gerry's and by that time also, Kate's request to give evidence.  

I also think payment is rearing its ugly head.  Costs must run into hundreds of thousands of Euros, and going by Enid O'Downs brilliant financial reports, we can see they were down to their last half million.  The McCanns have been paying at least 6 firms of top lawyers for almost 7 years - we know their greedy and spiteful action against Tony Bennett cost them dear, at least £370,000 if I remember correctly*.  I don't believe they have any rich benefactors left - certainly, none appeared on the Just Giving pages, and in any event, no sane person would cover the legal costs of vexatious litigants, it would equate to financing a reckless and compulsive gambler.  These millionaires did not get where they are by throwing their cash into bottomless pits.  Helping a distraught couple with a private jet at a time of crisis, is entirely different to funding their legal actions 7 years on.

Imo, the McCanns are broke, they went ahead with their claim against GA in the face of the advice they were given, but chancers that they are, they believed they could win the cash - their greed in including Madeleine in the claim, may have been that step too far. 

I wonder if Isabel has stepped down?  Can Counsel do that in the middle of a trial?  Have the McCanns dismissed her, and now can't find anyone else? The mood in the McCann camp towards the end of the trial must have been full of anger and recriminations.  The McCanns' case was a shambles, they had no credible witnesses and the trial was being held in the full glare of two police investigations into the claimants!  A unique situation -one that no court could ignore.  

Frustrating for us as the missing trial seems to have left everything in limbo. I think the McCanns are in serious trouble financially, I read somewhere recently, that costs in Portugal must be paid in advance.  It is possible that the McCanns seeing the case go down the drain, have put legal expenses in Portugal at the bottom of their list of priorities.    









*Tony I do urge you to apply for some sort of staying Order asap if possible

Cristobell, stop being dramatic.....
I honestly don't think so !

If the trial has collapsed we would have heard it by now, surely ?
A false victory for the Mccanns is small mercy they will celebrate.
vs
the alternative - a crashing defeat they can't hide.

PeterMac wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
Nevertheless, it would seem to me that in the event of proceedings being brought in the criminal courts, the witnesses for the defence will not differ greatly from those who took the stand in Lisbon.

In a criminal trial, witnesses are not permitted to give hearsay evidence, so NONE of the ones who appeared in Lisbon would be allowed.  Not one.

That doesn't mean they will stop trying to send in same bunch of incompetents and phonies again if needed.
The payable ones are in short supply.
Beggers can't be Choosers.

What's the alternative ?

Forget :
Virgin Boss
Top Shop Boss
Golden Balls
Wizard Writer
These big names will avoid them like plaques.

When their day arrives there will be a long line of worms crawling out of the woodwork....Pink Toad, Jim Gamble ? MWT......

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
Nevertheless, it would seem to me that in the event of proceedings being brought in the criminal courts, the witnesses for the defence will not differ greatly from those who took the stand in Lisbon.

In a criminal trial, witnesses are not permitted to give hearsay evidence, so NONE of the ones who appeared in Lisbon would be allowed.  Not one.

That doesn't mean they will stop trying to send in same bunch of incompetents and phonies again if needed.
The payable ones are in short supply.
Beggers can't be Choosers.

What's the alternative ?

Forget :
Virgin Boss
Top Shop Boss
Golden Balls
Wizard Writer
These big names will avoid them like plaques.

When their day arrives there will be a long line of worms crawling out of the woodwork....Pink Toad, Jim Gamble ? MWT......

Yum! tell me more! Hearsay evidence not allowed in a criminal trial. That's going to cramp their style.   

Sorry to disappoint, tigger, but Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has it otherwise and the case of  R v Athwal and another (Court of Appeal Criminal Divsion 2009) does not automatically exclude hearsay evidence of the 'he said/she said' variety being used in criminal proceedings.

ultimaThule wrote:Sorry to disappoint, tigger, but Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has it otherwise and the case of  R v Athwal and another (Court of Appeal Criminal Divsion 2009) does not automatically exclude hearsay evidence of the 'he said/she said' variety being used in criminal proceedings.

What does quoting UK law (copy and paste) have to do with Portuguese law and Portuguese courts?

Tony Bennett wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:If, as I suspect, the Court/judge is 'evaluating' the Wardship, it's unlikely there will be anything to report for some time as the ponderous nature of communication between the courts of different countries, together with the need for all documents to be translated, can be a lengthy process and additional time will be required to give all of the information received due consideration in law.

The McCanns' libel claim against Goncalo Amaral, TVi etc. includes a claim BY Madeleine for libel damages, which is made ON HER BEHALF by the McCanns.

Even in this extraordinary case of extraordinary events, this is one of the most extraordinary libel claims ever made, surely?

Suppose the Court made an award to Madeleine? - on the basis, presumably, that she is alive and that she would have been returned to her parents a lot sooner had not 'that man' published 'that book' (or 'piece of work' as I think Clarence Mitchell once called it).

Suppose for the sake of argument that the court finds the case proved and orders Goncalo Amaral and TVi to pay Madeleine 100,000 euros (I think that the McCanns actually claimed more than that for her).

Who is the money to be paid to?

The McCanns?

A trust fund held by the McCanns?

A trust fund held by a Court?

Or where?

And what happens if she is never found?

What happens to the money?

Suppose she is found - dead - what happens to the money then?

Is the money returned to Goncalo Amaral or TVi?

In the unlikley event that the McCanns know more about all this than they've said, then what happens?

Even to ask these questions tends to reveal the utter absurdity of this claim.

The McCanns' claim for damages is one thing.

But a claim BY Madeleine FOR Madeleine? - very strange.

This court case has now lasted 4 years and 9 months.

'That book' has been freely on sale in two or three dozen countries since the October 2010 Portuguese Appeal Court ruling.

An English translation of it is freely available on the internet for anyone who is really interested.

There is a procedure known to English law where a case can be declared closed by a court on the basis of 'the effluxion of time', i.e. 'this case has gone on for far too long'.

I wonder if Portugal has such an equivalent?

In such circumstaances, each side would probably bear their own costs, unless it can be shown that one party or the other is wholly or mainly responsible for the delays.

And, further, what happens if one side 'wins'?

Will there be an appeal?

There have been THREE appeals already in this case, with Amaral ahead of the McCanns 2-1 at the moment...

It is, indeed, extraordinary, Tony, and the ramifications are such that it becomes question of where to start when listing/unravelling them. 

The fact that the parents have enjoined their 3 children, one of whom is a Ward of Court under the law of England/Wales, in libel proceedings is in itself extraordinary and, as far as I can see, unprecedented. and more particularly when it would seem that none of the children have been defamed and the two younger children, having been seen by a trained psychologist in the presence of their parents on one occasion almost 7 years ago, are said to be well-adjusted to the traumatic circumstances surrounding their older sibling's abrupt disappearance from their lives.   

From the little I have been able to ascertain of the claim made in respect of the two younger children, this relates to some future date at which time they may read, on the internet or elsewhere, Dr Amaral's book which posits a theory which is not dissimilar to that put forward by the Portuguese police at the time their investigation into the disappearance of the older sibling was shelved - the case papers of which have been put into the public domain and can be freely accessed by all - at which time, one assumes, the McCanns' allege they may become not so well-adjusted as they are now. 

With regard to their eldest child whose whereabouts is unknown, the claim would appear to be that publication of Dr Amaral's book with its not dissimilar theory etc (as above paragraph) has caused harm to the parents' search for her notwithstanding the fact that, although the investigation per se was shelved in 2008, the PJ have continued to follow through various information which has come to their attention, and a number of different detective agencies were employed by the parents until the PJ got back on, and SY got on, the case so to speak.

When setting the above against the fact that the Supreme Court of Portugal upheld the judgement of the Appellate Court against them, one has to wonder why the McCanns' are intent on pursuing a claim for damages against the author of a book that has been ruled non-libellous and why this case has been allowed to proceed.  Maybe something has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', but it seems to be an unparalleled nonsense of a case which, without wishing to cast any aspersions on the Portuguese judiciary, I cannot imagine having got off the ground in the High Court. 

The Wardship opens yet another can of worms not least, as you say, the question of where any monetary award by way of compensation is held.   In the normal course of events any monies due to a Ward of Court by way of recompense for a claim of personal/criminal injury are paid into the Court to be held for them until such time as the minor achieves their majority and/or the Wardship is discharged.  

However, given that no important steps in a Ward's life can be taken without permission having first been obtained from the High Court,  if it should be engaged in 'evaluating' the Wardship then presumably the Lisbon court will be able to establish whether the McCanns are empowered to act for and enjoin their eldest daughter in these proceedings and what steps have been taken to guard her from potential financial harm as well as safeguard any financial gain.

@utimaThule.

Are you saying that a Portuguese court presiding over a libel trial would have to consider at this very late stage the fact that Madeleine was made a ward of court in UK?

Are you suggesting that Madeleine's status in UK is the cause of yet another adjournment?

Please tell. You're really good at law.

ultimaThule wrote:

When setting the above against the fact that the Supreme Court of Portugal upheld the judgement of the Appellate Court against them, one has to wonder why the McCanns' are intent on pursuing a claim for damages against the author of a book that has been ruled non-libellous...

Not quite, uT, and I know you are a stickler for accuracy.

Both the Portugese Appeal and Supreme Courts effectively ruled that there was no reason why the book should not continue to be sold PENDING a final decision in the Lisbon Civil Court as to whether the book actually libelled anyone at all.

The extraordinary thing would be if a libel court in 2014 were to finally rule that the book was libellous, after a series of Portugal's most supreme judges have unanimously ruled: "It's quite OK, Dr Amaral, keep on selling your book until the Lisbon Civil Court makes a decision".    

It is now over 3 years since the Supreme Court decision in March 2011.

Every day that goes by makes it less and less likely that a court will say his book was libellous after all...  

 

You are of course strictly and legally correct.
But as with evidence obtained unlawfully (see for example, McCanns - v - Bennett, where the main piece of evidence had been obtained by Fraud and the Plaintiff's solicitors were therefore clearly Guilty of Handling Stolen Goods . . . )
the judge has a duty to warn the jury about the nature of the evidence.
Generally hearsay evidence will not be allowed.
Police are taught to include it in witness statements, but then to mark it as Hearsay,
this gives the HOLMES teams, Anacapa, and ultimately the CPS a fuller picture of what was going on.

And of course there is a distinction between using the statement
"Tanner told me she had seen a man carrying a child" as evidence that she had seen a child, and as evidence that she has made that statement.
In one case it might be material to a prosecution of a person who had been seen carrying a child - (someone like Robert Murat for example who she identified with confidence)
In the other it might be material to a prosecution for Perverting the Course of Justice by making false, fatuous and stupid statements to the police to put them off the track.
It is all a question of interpretation !

aquila wrote:@utimaThule.
Are you saying that a Portuguese court presiding over a libel trial would have to consider at this very late stage the fact that Madeleine was made a ward of court in UK?
Are you suggesting that Madeleine's status in UK is the cause of yet another adjournment?

The information is that this is exactly what is happening.

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:@utimaThule.
Are you saying that a Portuguese court presiding over a libel trial would have to consider at this very late stage the fact that Madeleine was made a ward of court in UK?
Are you suggesting that Madeleine's status in UK is the cause of yet another adjournment?

The information is that this is exactly what is happening.

Information from whom PeterMac?

I don't recall reading anywhere that the libel trial has been postponed due to the explicit fact Madeleine is a ward of court in UK.

I shall apologise profusely if I've missed it and got it all wrong.

IIRC it was the defense, who brought Madeleine's WOC-ship to the attention of the Court, whereas it were the plaintiffs, who asked for an adjournment. I stand correct, though.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:@utimaThule.
Are you saying that a Portuguese court presiding over a libel trial would have to consider at this very late stage the fact that Madeleine was made a ward of court in UK?
Are you suggesting that Madeleine's status in UK is the cause of yet another adjournment?

The information is that this is exactly what is happening.

Information from whom PeterMac?

I don't recall reading anywhere that the libel trial has been postponed due to the explicit fact Madeleine is a ward of court in UK.

I shall apologise profusely if I've missed it and got it all wrong.

This Aquila............

ultimaThule wrote:
Posted on twitter with kind permission from Astro:



"Goncalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.



He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.



Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.



This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared".




I was under the impression that the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court was dealt with either at the commencement of these libel proceedings or earlier and that it had been determined that the McCanns could not sue on her behalf. I was also under the impression that Madeleine McCann's name had been removed from the Plaint.

It's my understanding that in Wardship matters only the Court can issue legal proceedings on behalf of its Ward(s) and, further, the fact that Madeleine is a Ward of Court precludes the McCanns from being given assistente status in relation to the PJ's re-opened criminal investigation.

Thanks Candyfloss. I had read this info before. I'll go digest it again and see if I can make some sense out of it.  

aquila wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Sorry to disappoint, tigger, but Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has it otherwise and the case of  R v Athwal and another (Court of Appeal Criminal Divsion 2009) does not automatically exclude hearsay evidence of the 'he said/she said' variety being used in criminal proceedings.

What does quoting UK law (copy and paste) have to do with Portuguese law and Portuguese courts?

Do get over yourself, aquila, otherwise I shall have no recourse but to '(copy and paste)' our brief pm exchanges of November last year which should leave other members in no doubt as to why you continually seek to snipe at me and denigrate my responses whenever it pleases you to do so.

As I have already expended valuable time addressing your professed ignorance of the law here  https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4334p60-matthew-oldfield-s-rogatory-interview-snippets#233542 which fact you have yet to acknowledge, I suggest you apply your mind to finding the answer to your latest question, together with any further ones you have in mind to ask me, elsewhere.

Ouch!

Tony Bennett wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

When setting the above against the fact that the Supreme Court of Portugal upheld the judgement of the Appellate Court against them, one has to wonder why the McCanns' are intent on pursuing a claim for damages against the author of a book that has been ruled non-libellous...

Not quite, uT, and I know you are a stickler for accuracy.

Both the Portugese Appeal and Supreme Courts effectively ruled that there was no reason why the book should not continue to be sold PENDING a final decision in the Lisbon Civil Court as to whether the book actually libelled anyone at all.

The extraordinary thing would be if a libel court in 2014 were to finally rule that the book was libellous, after a series of Portugal's most supreme judges have unanimously ruled: "It's quite OK, Dr Amaral, keep on selling your book until the Lisbon Civil Court makes a decision".    

It is now over 3 years since the Supreme Court decision in March 2011.

Every day that goes by makes it less and less likely that a court will say his book was libellous after all...  

 

Oh dear!  I hope I'm not always seen as a 'stickler for accuracy', Tony - I'm not quite as grim as that image conjures up for me (memories of keen-eyed ruler-rapping tweed clad stern-featured teacher drilling class on 'facts v fiction' and finding no fun favour in the latter)  

I've taken the liberty of reproducing the latter part of the Appellate Court's judgement, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, from Pamalam's site here and have highlighted in red those parts of it which led me to incorrectly surmise that Dr Amaral's book was not deemed to be libellous and which now lead me to surmise that it has not been deemed injurious to the plaintiffs:

Let us now analyse the juridical focus of the rights that were invoked by the applicants: As mentioned above, the Court's decision a quo immediately put aside the dangers of damage to the applihcants' physical integrity or their treatment in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way. The following dangers subsist: 1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life; 2. damage to their right to image and a good name; 3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.

Concerning the applicants' reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced by the British TV station "Channel 4", which had the applicants' cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (ref. Nos. 32 to 35 of the aforementioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television talk show "Oprah" hosted by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (ref. No. 40 of the same facts). Concerning this matter, the Civil Code establishes as follows: Article 80º   (Right to reservation over the intimacy of private life) 1. Everyone must maintain the reservation over someone else's intimacy of private life. 2. The extent of reservation is defined according to the nature of the case and the persons' condition. Article 81º   (Voluntary limitation of personality rights)   1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.   2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party. We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants. In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them. In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General's Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process. Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations. We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates - those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved - and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.

In a concise manner: The book at stake in this process - "Maddie - the Truth of the Lie" - which was written by the defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text. The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.

As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced. The appeal by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral is sustained. The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced - article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code. III - Decision In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following: The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved. Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals. Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children]. Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges, Francisco Bruto da Costa Catarina Arelo Manso   Antonio Valente -

From what you've said, I got it wrong in that what I thought was a trial to determine whether a non-libellous book has caused various hurts, harms, and other non-physical injuries to the McCanns and their 3 children to the value of some 1.2million euros as claimed in a plaint running to some 34 or 35 pages, would appear to be a trial to determine whether a book which has caused them no such injuries has libelled (defamed) them to the tune of 1.2million euros.     

In which case, I'm even more bemused by the plaintiffs' choice of witnesses and by the fact that each of them appeared to place more emphasis on the alleged hurts and harms caused by the book to the McCanns and their search for their eldest daughter than bringing the Court's attention to any factual inaccuracies or erroneous information contained therein which could be said to be libellous or defamatory. 

If the Court is engaged in evaluating the Wardship it could take some considerable time before the judge is in possession of sufficient information to rule on it.  In the meantime, AR has made a statement which the defence can introduce in closing arguments to refute any allegation that Dr Amaral's theory has, in itself, libelled or is defamatory to the plaintiffs.

By any test of law other than Catch 22, this trial has to be among the most extraordinary, and extraordinarily protracted, proceedings outside of those Chancery cases so actutely depicted by Dickens which meandered on over periods of time during which Wards attained their majority, achieved their dotages and, in some cases, joined the choir immortal before any resolution was obtained.

As you've also said, Tony, every day that goes by makes it less likely that a court will say Dr Amaral's book is libellous... and for every day that goes by the legal costs for both sides are mounting.

ultimaThule wrote:SNIP
In which case, I'm even more bemused by the plaintiffs' choice of witnesses and by the fact that each of them appeared to place more emphasis on the alleged hurts and harms caused by the book to the McCanns and their search for their eldest daughter than bringing the Court's attention to any factual inaccuracies or erroneous information contained therein which could be said to be libellous or defamatory. 
SNIP.

I am not sure why you are 'bemused' that they did not bring the court's attention to factual inaccuracies . . . They dare not. They can not. It would be an act of suicide to do so.
Just as in McCanns-v-Bennett they dare not allow any facts to be put before the court.
And we remember that in that infamous case, when just one alleged fact, given the word "abduction" was put before the Learned Judge, it had hastily to be withdrawn.

I believe, given what I have read about Mrs. apparently wanting Mr. Amaral to feel fear, that these proceedings were brought about for that purpose.   I also believe that it was thought  that Mr. A. would settle out of court and the press reports would show that if anybody dared to question or put forward a theory which did not agree with what was said to have  happened on that holiday would also end up in court facing bankruptcy.

I still believe that a decision will be made in Rocky's favour.  In fact I would like to see a decision made that the proceedings were vexacious, given what Mrs. apparently wrote in her book.

I was shocked to read such a thing had been written, to want someone to feel fear, I am very shocked that it was put into print.  Very shocked indeed.

Could the McCanns have used Madeleine in their libel claim in an attempt to save face by getting the case delayed and/or thrown out of court?

The defence lawyers must have known that Madeleine was a woc before the trial started but they didn't raise the issue immediately. They allowed the trial to go ahead and let witnesses destroy any credibility the McCanns had before almost casually twisting the knife by pointing out the McCanns cannot sue on behalf of Madeleine.

‘Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
 
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation’.
 
Not being a legal person, so I may be completely off track, but I would have thought that of everything being considered in the trial, the WOC situation was one of the few things that was actually black & white.
I have no idea how long and detailed a WOC document is, but it must surely be readily available and once submitted (within the 15 day deadline given) should not take three months to evaluate.
 
 

Following my request yesterday for any sort of update on the trial, this question has now been asked directly of Anne Guedes on the UK Justice Forum, so hopefully they may get some sort of answer.
 
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=lib1t6f7i64humh60igq02r657&topic=3820.0
 
Thank you ‘gilet’.

eta
Threads been moved to:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=lib1t6f7i64humh60igq02r657&topic=2202.1770