LAST DAY OF LIBEL TRIAL 8th July 2014 DISCUSSION AND NEWS

ShuBob wrote:I'm now confused about the point of this trial.

If it's not to establish whether what's written in the book is true or not but simply to find out if it damaged the couple, does that then mean that even in a case where the truth has been establish before the case is brought to court, the plaintiff can bring a case simply because the truth is detrimental to them?   

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:

PeterMac wrote:There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.
The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended

I don't like the sound of that. So, providing the McC's say the book offended them, they can get £1million quid?

Ladyinred wrote:Doctors in the UK are not allowed to self-prescribe and, except in emergencies, they do not provide treatment for their relatives, is.

Yes, agree, but nevertheless they do.

Dee Coy wrote:

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:

PeterMac wrote:There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.
The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended

I don't like the sound of that. So, providing the McC's say the book offended them, they can get £1million quid?

Me neither. If they only have to prove they were hurt by the book then that represents a significant shifting of the goalposts, imo. And not in a "McCanns score an own goal" sort of way.

Sounds a bit subjective to me, so difficult to prove against their claims. Hmm.

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Joana's transcript of court proceedings:

"The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs."

 This being the case, then expert witnesses/documentation would need to be provided to the court?

tigger wrote:Quote:

Judge – Have you observed that people thought differently of you after the publication of the book?
GMC notes that it is difficult to answer because this requires knowing what the people thought before.

Unquote

   so one can take it that he observed no change in behaviour, people still walked out  of a room when he entered it?

tigger wrote:Quote:

Judge – Have you observed that people thought differently of you after the publication of the book?
GMC notes that it is difficult to answer because this requires knowing what the people thought before.

Unquote

   so one can take it that he observed no change in behaviour, people still walked out  of a room when he entered it?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I would say the McCanns have made a rubbish job of substantiating their claims so far. No clinical depression, Gerry able to function at work, no proof of any incident of actual damage to them, still ambassadors and going to galas etc, Leveson, SY review still going on so clearly search not hampered, going on fun runs and so it goes on. I don't think they have provided one serious bit of proof that it has had any effect on them at all, and for that they want a million euros.

I feel sure the judge will rule against them.

Justformaddie wrote:Does km not realise it was when she refused to answer the 48 questions and ran back to the uk that, IMO, made people rethink the truth of a lie and that she was the one who hindered the search? She seems to forget that whilst she was jogging, playing tennis and traveling the world the rest of pdl were out searching, taking time off work to find her daughter who she neglected. All IMO
Maybe she expects pdl to still take time off work to search for maddie whilst they travel and sit on TV sofas IMO

SuspiciousMinds wrote:QUOTE: "GMC explains that it states right at the beginning that Madeleine is dead, that there was no abduction, that he and his wife are liars, that they are cold and ruthless enough to hide a body instead of rending assistance. There's no evidence of that and the evidence that the documentary presents doesn't match."

See, this is what bugs me, time and time again. Do they ever, ever just come out and deny that they hid the body? It's always "there is no evidence" or "we didn't kill her" or "it's ludicrous" - they never seem to deny irrevocably the thing they're actually being accused of.

"No evidence" does not mean they didn't do it - it just means no-one is capable of proving in court that they actually did do it. Why is the lack of evidence so much more important to them than just simply telling the world, "We didn't do it"?


Put yourself in that situation. What would trip from your lips?

1. "Someone said my child is dead, there was no abduction, my wife and I are cold, ruthless liars, and we hid her body. There is no evidence of that."

2. "Someone said my child is dead, there was no abduction, my wife and I are cold, ruthless liars, and we hid her body. It's wicked, untrue rubbish - we love our children with all our hearts, and we would never, ever do anything like that."


Actually, the first option is even more weird than I thought at first, because it suggests that Gerry doesn't KNOW if he and his wife are cold, ruthless liars who hid the body, but that he could be persuaded to believe it if someone showed him some evidence!

canada12 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I would say the McCanns have made a rubbish job of substantiating their claims so far. No clinical depression, Gerry able to function at work, no proof of any incident of actual damage to them, still ambassadors and going to galas etc, Leveson, SY review still going on so clearly search not hampered, going on fun runs and so it goes on. I don't think they have provided one serious bit of proof that it has had any effect on them at all, and for that they want a million euros.

I feel sure the judge will rule against them.

I feel the same way. So far all they've really proved is that the book made them unhappy and made their children ask questions. Any book can do that. Why not sue every writer that's ever written anything that made them feel the slightest bit cheesed off?

I think both Kate and Gerry summed it up well when they were asked whether they had any depression or inability to sleep. Both responded they had, but it was temporary. That in itself seals the verdict for me. They were temporarily upset but now they're not, so no long standing ill-effects, case closed.

Cristobell wrote:Oh what a tangled web we weave......  eh?

Had Kate told the truth about how people had deserted them in droves she would have had a valid argument as to loss of reputation. However the party line has always been that everyone supports them.  Goncalo's lawyer proved that with the 20,000 people turning up for a prayer meeting (that Kate didn't know about) and her elevation to Ambassador for Missing People, that their reputation clearly hadn't suffered at all. Kate fell into the Judge's trap.  When asked about famous people, Kate said they had renowned people who supported them.  Effectively, she was arguing the case for the Defence, their reputation wasn't harmed.   

The truth is, their reputations are in ruins, and I am sure they have plenty of evidence to substantiate it - a simply graph of the drop in the donations to the Fund, would have perfectly illustrated their loss of popularity.  However, the McCanns are so arrogant that they used their own children (again), rather than admit people don't like them anymore.

Woofer wrote:Truly like ostriches - heads in the sand - don`t realise everyone can see their bottoms.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:QUOTE: "GMC explains that it states right at the beginning that Madeleine is dead, that there was no abduction, that he and his wife are liars, that they are cold and ruthless enough to hide a body instead of rending assistance. There's no evidence of that and the evidence that the documentary presents doesn't match."

See, this is what bugs me, time and time again. Do they ever, ever just come out and deny that they hid the body? It's always "there is no evidence" or "we didn't kill her" or "it's ludicrous" - they never seem to deny irrevocably the thing they're actually being accused of.

"No evidence" does not mean they didn't do it - it just means no-one is capable of proving in court that they actually did do it. Why is the lack of evidence so much more important to them than just simply telling the world, "We didn't do it"?


Put yourself in that situation. What would trip from your lips?

1. "Someone said my child is dead, there was no abduction, my wife and I are cold, ruthless liars, and we hid her body. There is no evidence of that."

2. "Someone said my child is dead, there was no abduction, my wife and I are cold, ruthless liars, and we hid her body. It's wicked, untrue rubbish - we love our children with all our hearts, and we would never, ever do anything like that."


Actually, the first option is even more weird than I thought at first, because it suggests that Gerry doesn't KNOW if he and his wife are cold, ruthless liars who hid the body, but that he could be persuaded to believe it if someone showed him some evidence!