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

by Leaser 12.07.14 8:22

Woofer wrote:
Woofer wrote:Just catching up. I agree with another couple of posters who`ve said this is not a libel trial as in

"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.

The Judge says it is not necessary to know what the truth is. So we can all give up with that aspect.

I must admit I could never understand how this could be a libel trial without knowing the truth.

So the charge is `offence to persons`. Is there such a thing ? Any legal whizz-kids here?

As another poster said - expecting to get £1.2 million just because someone has offended you is a bit rich.

Also,

From what the McCanns both stated it seems the TV programme caused them more offence than GA`s book and I`m sure the Judge registered this - so perhaps its the TVI that are going to pay the price.

PS - Have checked and in the UK (don`t know about Portugal) Offence Against a Person entails physical harm.

I`ve bumped my post from yesterday because I`m hoping someone can confirm that there is actually such a charge as `offence to persons` (obviously hearing the truth is not necessary).

This is interesting, I am not a lawyer, but I think the Judge's thinking is

That "Offense to Persons" is not "Harm to Persons" and therefore not so serious. And, if something offends you then you can avoid it, where as, perhaps if something harms you, you may not be able to avoid it.

I think she is thinking, if you don't like the book, you have the choice of not reading it? So the case asking for 1 Million or what ever they want, is an over reaction.

Can anyone confirm?

???? howdy

Added later ... If harm were caused, this would be a criminal offence and this case is not prosecuting a criminal offense of causing harm, but is a civil case of causing offense, I think??

by Guest 12.07.14 8:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
"Did his exercise of his freedom of speech damage the McCanns' reputation?"

then Amaral has a harder task.

I think that's the idea behind the "hate" laws.

People can just say "I'm offended" and get things shut down.

But the truth is often offensive.

Freedom of speech is being taken away by tiny increments (don't ask for the whole salami, ask for the salami in thin slices.. you'll still get all of it eventually).

by soundworks 12.07.14 8:40

Im offended by KM's book , can I sue?

I have nightmares, cannot sleep, paid money into the fund (not lol) and so on

by Leaser 12.07.14 9:19

soundworks wrote:Im offended by KM's book , can I sue?

I have nightmares, cannot sleep, paid money into the fund (not lol) and so on

I think the defence would say, you have a choice, don't read it, because you have a duty to minimise any damages you may claim, I think.

Which if it is good for the goose ... etc

howdy

by **Tony Bennett** 12.07.14 9:29

BlueBag wrote:
People can just say "I'm offended" and get things shut down. But the truth is often offensive.

As Christ Himself found when He attacked the jumped-up, holier-than-thou, religious leaders of His day:

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Matthew 15 v 14

by **tigger** 12.07.14 9:32

Leaser wrote:
soundworks wrote:Im offended by KM's book , can I sue?

I have nightmares, cannot sleep, paid money into the fund (not lol) and so on

I think the defence would say, you have a choice, don't read it, because you have a duty to minimise any damages you may claim, I think.

Which if it is good for the goose ... etc

The prosecution would state however that one has to read the book first before one is aware of the terrible and possibly lifelong damage to your mental health this activity entails.
In other words, you have to open the box to know what's in it.
I think you have an excellent case. smilie

Treatment for this condition which should be given an official title such as KH1 ...? Suggestions welcome.

by Leaser 12.07.14 9:33

Leaser wrote:
soundworks wrote:Im offended by KM's book , can I sue?

I have nightmares, cannot sleep, paid money into the fund (not lol) and so on

I think the defence would say, you have a choice, don't read it, because you have a duty to minimise any damages you may claim, I think.

Which if it is good for the goose ... etc

However, still catching up, I have read that according to the Portugal Resident

http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-give-evidence-but-libel-trial-postponed-yet-again

The case is about "harm caused by the book". If what the Judge says is correct, she is not there to consider "harm" since this would be a criminal offence, but could possibly consider "offense".

So could it be a technicality issue, I wonder?

Does anyone know if the necessary document from the UK High Court was produced giving approval for a case in the name of the Ward of Court?

by plebgate 12.07.14 9:34

I don't get it either because if it is just a matter of deciding if they have been offended what was the point of calling Rocky's witnesses. Basically his witnesses said that whatever was said in the book was in the official police files? Were they offended by the police files? What was the point of calling any witnesses, why not just go into court and be questioned by the judge in the first place.

As far as we know they had to appeal to be heard last week. Why was that?

Thanks onehand for your posts and thanks aquila for posting the info. about Mitchell and his complete mystery comments.

by nglfi 12.07.14 9:36

aiyoyo wrote:Taken from Joana's blog.
With thanks and acknowledgement to Joana Morais

Gerald McCann - Can I make a statement?

Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist on a series of questions put by the lawyers and judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

Gerald McCann - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge - [interrupts] We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.

Gerald McCann - But the book states that as a fact!

Judge - To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

This translation is slightly different from the others. Where Gerry says 'the dog never alerted to blood in the car', that is correct. Only cadaver odour was detected because the body had been dead for some time, IMO. The absence of blood merely compounds the McCanns guilt, IMO. I think the judge was actually trying to shut him up for his own good!

by Leaser 12.07.14 9:40

tigger wrote:
Leaser wrote:
soundworks wrote:Im offended by KM's book , can I sue?

I have nightmares, cannot sleep, paid money into the fund (not lol) and so on

I think the defence would say, you have a choice, don't read it, because you have a duty to minimise any damages you may claim, I think.

Which if it is good for the goose ... etc

The prosecution would state however that one has to read the book first before one is aware of the terrible and possibly lifelong damage to your mental health this activity entails.
In other words, you have to open the box to know what's in it.
I think you have an excellent case. Treatment for this condition which should be given an official title such as KH1 ...? Suggestions welcome.

Great condition, surely the remedy would be treatment and not damages.

However, is there a distinction between a civil case for "offense to the person" and a criminal case for "harm to the person". the book that reading of is suggested to be the cause of lifelong damage would have to be prosecuted under a criminal trial and not civil, I believe???? However I am not a lawyer. smilie

by Woofer 12.07.14 10:05

Five Ice Creams wrote:
Woofer wrote:XTC - at the last session (before this recent one) the McCanns were ordered by the Judge to provide proof that the Ward (Justice Hogg) had agreed to the McCanns taking out this Writ on Maddie`s behalf and her agreement to be dated BEFORE the Writ was taken out obviously.

Equally GA was supposed to provide proof of his earnings from the book IIRC.
This strikes me as a Mexican stand-off whereby GA is not providing proof of earnings until they provide WoC documentation.

I will be devastated if they are able to provide appropriately-dated documentation as, IMO, it will prove once and for all they have support from powerful quarters i.e. enough to have legal documents falsified on their behalf.

IMO, if they had appropriate documentation/ authority it would have been submitted at the outset of their application for damages to their sensitive feelings and good character to allow them to get their hands on the money more quickly.

If they had obtained Justice Hogg`s authority at the outset, it would have been included with the original Writ, so IMO they didn`t.

You`re right - if they now produce a back-dated authority, it would be ringing big bells that the establishment are in on a cover-up.

by Montclair 12.07.14 10:14

Woofer wrote:XTC - at the last session (before this recent one) the McCanns were ordered by the Judge to provide proof that the Ward (Justice Hogg) had agreed to the McCanns taking out this Writ on Maddie`s behalf and her agreement to be dated BEFORE the Writ was taken out obviously.

Equally GA was supposed to provide proof of his earnings from the book IIRC.

All of the defendents, not just GA, were to present proof of their earnings. AFAIK, GA had already done so. As for the others, I don't know.

by Montclair 12.07.14 10:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:
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 [translated elsewhere I think as 'damage to persons' reputatoin by the exercise of freedom of speech']. 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.
Textusa has been making much of this point, and with some justification I think.

IF the judge's remarks have been reported anything like accurately, this could be ominous for Goncalo Amaral.

If the issue at stake is not, say:

"Did Amaral have reasonable grounds for his opinions?"

but

"Did his exercise of his freedom of speech damage the McCanns' reputation?"

then Amaral has a harder task.

One hopes then that the judge will consider the remarks of the Portuguese Court of Appeal (Oct 2010) and the Supreme Court (Mr 2011) on the banning and unbanning of the book, although that was on the narrower issue of "Under Art. 10 of the ECHR, should this this book be sold or not, pending the full libel/damages trial?"

The onus is on the McCanns and they must prove that their honour and reputation have been damaged. IMO, it is obvious that they have failed miserably to prove any suffering caused by the book. So, I don't understand your reasoning that Gonçalo Amaral has a hard task.

by AndyB 12.07.14 10:35

Montclair wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:
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 [translated elsewhere I think as 'damage to persons' reputatoin by the exercise of freedom of speech']. 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.
Textusa has been making much of this point, and with some justification I think.

IF the judge's remarks have been reported anything like accurately, this could be ominous for Goncalo Amaral.

If the issue at stake is not, say:

"Did Amaral have reasonable grounds for his opinions?"

but

"Did his exercise of his freedom of speech damage the McCanns' reputation?"

then Amaral has a harder task.

One hopes then that the judge will consider the remarks of the Portuguese Court of Appeal (Oct 2010) and the Supreme Court (Mr 2011) on the banning and unbanning of the book, although that was on the narrower issue of "Under Art. 10 of the ECHR, should this this book be sold or not, pending the full libel/damages trial?"

The onus is on the McCanns and they must prove that their honour and reputation have been damaged. IMO, it is obvious that they have failed miserably to prove any suffering caused by the book. So, I don't understand your reasoning that Gonçalo Amaral has a hard task.

Because it takes away an important part of his defence - that the book is an accurate representation of what is in the police files and an honest reporting of his experience investigating Madeleine's disappearance. If what we're reading is accurate none of that now matters. The only thing that matters is; has the book damaged the reputations of people who are legally innocent of any crime whatsoever. It is perhaps fortunate that under Portuguese law the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff rather than the English system of the guilt of the accused being assumed but if the judge is limiting herself to the narrow question she appears to be then I agree that Dr Amaral may well be in trouble

by plebgate 12.07.14 10:45

So was the judge going to make a decision without hearing what Mr. & Mrs. had to say? They had to appeal to be heard didn't they? If the appeal had failed then how would the judge have been able to ascertain the damage to their reputations if she had only heard evidence from friends and relatives? Was there any documentary evidence provided? Not that we know of so I still do not understand how the judge would have been able to decide to what extent the book had damaged their reputations if she had not heard evidence from them?

by Bishop Brennan 12.07.14 10:51

From what I read, it seems as though the judge has to balance two opposing "rights". The right to free speech (e.g. writing a book), and the right to a good reputation. Just as well this doesn't apply to the UK or else our tabloid papers would be out of business!

I suspect that draws the judge into making a 'reasonableness' judgement. Was Amaral behaving reasonably when he wrote the book? Was he trying to be aggressive and vindictive? Did he speculate wildly or were his words based on facts and reasonable assertions? If the answers are positive, then this is not some rabid hate-book designed with the INTENT to cause harm. And that will be important.

On the other hand she will look at the McCanns to see whether their claims of a ruined reputation are sustained by the evidence. Crucially the marginal difference the book made over and above being made arguidos. Having drawn attention to the other books, she may see their focus on Amaral as being motivated not by reputation but rather by a personal grudge. Personal grudges are not a right, and therefore the balance is likely to move towards Amaral.

What I don't know in a case where two opposing rights are being balanced, is how they are settled. She may rule in favour of the McCanns, but award a tiny amount of money. Or she may make a ruling to Amaral because he has not abused his right of free speech, and that is the more important right (according to EU recent directives).

Either way, this case still represents a litmus test for the next stage of this story IMO.

by Woofer 12.07.14 10:51

plebgate wrote:So was the judge going to make a decision without hearing what Mr. & Mrs. had to say? They had to appeal to be heard didn't they? If the appeal had failed then how would the judge have been able to ascertain the damage to their reputations if she had only heard evidence from friends and relatives? Was there any documentary evidence provided? Not that we know of so I still do not understand how the judge would have been able to decide to what extent the book had damaged their reputations if she had not heard evidence from them?

If their reputations had been damaged, they would probably have been sacked from their jobs and unable to get employment - yet it seems he has still flourished in his career and she has done even better by being made an Ambassador. Mrs

In this case it appears the Portuguese are using the word `Honour` that has been damaged.

by Woofer 12.07.14 10:54

IIRC Goncalo wrote the book to DEFEND HIS OWN HONOUR.

by AndyB 12.07.14 11:01

Woofer wrote:
plebgate wrote:So was the judge going to make a decision without hearing what Mr. & Mrs. had to say? They had to appeal to be heard didn't they? If the appeal had failed then how would the judge have been able to ascertain the damage to their reputations if she had only heard evidence from friends and relatives? Was there any documentary evidence provided? Not that we know of so I still do not understand how the judge would have been able to decide to what extent the book had damaged their reputations if she had not heard evidence from them?
If their reputations had been damaged, they would probably have been sacked from their jobs and unable to get employment - yet it seems he has still flourished in his career and she has done even better by being made an Ambassador.

Highly unlikely IMO http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/927-doctors-keep-jobs-despite-1508052

by Miraflores 12.07.14 11:34

AndyB wrote:
Woofer wrote:
If their reputations had been damaged, they would probably have been sacked from their jobs and unable to get employment - yet it seems he has still flourished in his career and she has done even better by being made an Ambassador.
Highly unlikely IMO http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/927-doctors-keep-jobs-despite-1508052

Nor can being an Ambassador for Missing People really count as a job. Kate McCann can no longer seek employment as a doctor because she has no practising certificate. I don't know whether there is a mechanism for regaining the certificate should the need/desire arise, but I would imagine it would require some sort of 'return to practice' course if there is.

by jeanmonroe 12.07.14 11:43

Just wondering:

COULD Inspector Ricardo Paiva 'sue' KM, for libel, for alluding to him, in her written book, madeleine, as a 'f****ing T****r'?

Surely he must be totally 'offended' by this disgraceful 'slur' to his character?

And 'damage' to his reputation with people on the street saying, everytime they see him, 'there goes that 'f*****ing t****er'

Page 250: 'madeleine' written by Kate McCann: [ Ricardo Paiva] Each time a dog gave a signal, Ricardo would pause the video and inform me that blood had been found in this site and that the DNA from the sample matched Madeleine’s. He would stare at me intently and ask me to explain this.These were the only times I didn’t respond with a ‘No comment.’ Instead I said I couldn’t explain it, but neither could he. I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering,‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’
--------------------------------------

He must 'feel' absolutely 'awful' (probably depressed, can't sleep, no appetite, destroyed from his previous good social standing, etc.,) by KM's published 'opinion' of him, which people will believe, musn't he? winkwink

IF i'm understanding the Portuguese law, KM, WOULD HAVE TO PROVE, that Inspector R Paiva, IS, a 'f****ng t****er' wouldn't she?

by **PeterMac** 12.07.14 11:51

jeanmonroe wrote:Just wondering:
COULD Inspector Ricardo Paiva 'sue' KM for alluding to him, in the written book, madeleine, as a 'f****ing T****r'?

And why didn't they have a go at Tavares de Almeida ?

Intercalary report compiled by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral PJ Files
page 2601, Vol. X, of Process NUIPC-201/07.0 GALGS
For the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator

These principles, which in this manner, have been shared by the entire group, have the effect that for the English public opinion the whole GROUP is always cleared, rendering any abnormal event that might last longer than 30 minutes impossible, given the fact that they all agreed that was the time lapse in which the children were checked.

The version that someone from the group went to the apartments to check that everything was well, every 15 or 30 minutes, collapses!!

Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies.

Despite everything, until a certain time in the investigation, the family sustained and fed the theory of abduction. However, on a date that cannot be precise it was suggested by the family that a person should be consulted that could, eventually, indicate the probable location of little Madeleine’s cadaver.

This fact became inexplicable to the members of the investigation, given the fact that it was the members of the family themselves who raised the hypothesis little Maddie’s death.

Nevertheless, for the media they continued (and continue) to declare their hope of finding their daughter alive: the first time that the hypothesis of the little girl’s death was raised it was, effectively, suggested by the McCann couple.

The PJ knew knew that the entire Tapas group were lying, right from the start. It was, and remains, obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence.

by Bishop Brennan 12.07.14 11:54

PeterMac wrote:

The PJ knew knew that the entire Tapas group were lying, right from the start. It was, and remains, obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence.

A group that sadly appears to exclude BHH, AR and his team of crack investigators in SY... Yay Britain!

by Truthandjustice 12.07.14 12:48

plebgate wrote:So was the judge going to make a decision without hearing what Mr. & Mrs. had to say? They had to appeal to be heard didn't they? If the appeal had failed then how would the judge have been able to ascertain the damage to their reputations if she had only heard evidence from friends and relatives? Was there any documentary evidence provided? Not that we know of so I still do not understand how the judge would have been able to decide to what extent the book had damaged their reputations if she had not heard evidence from them?

Yep the judge was ready to make her decision having heard one after the other of unqualified witnesses presenting basically hearsay to the court on behalf of MCs. The MCs had originally not bothered to appear as witnesses but realising what an appalling show their team had made they applied last minute. Judge refused, heard enough but MCs appealed to higher court. They didn't say anything that would strengthen their case IMO.

by Bishop Brennan 12.07.14 12:56

Truthandjustice wrote:
plebgate wrote:So was the judge going to make a decision without hearing what Mr. & Mrs. had to say? They had to appeal to be heard didn't they? If the appeal had failed then how would the judge have been able to ascertain the damage to their reputations if she had only heard evidence from friends and relatives? Was there any documentary evidence provided? Not that we know of so I still do not understand how the judge would have been able to decide to what extent the book had damaged their reputations if she had not heard evidence from them?
Yep the judge was ready to make her decision having heard one after the other of unqualified witnesses presenting basically hearsay to the court on behalf of MCs. The MCs had originally not bothered to appear as witnesses but realising what an appalling show their team had made they applied last minute. Judge refused, heard enough but MCs appealed to higher court. They didn't say anything that would strengthen their case IMO.

Indeed they did not. And in fact it allowed the judge to confirm that their case has all the hallmarks of a personal vendetta against Amaral. GM has now said on record that despite the presence of his Internet/Media Monitoring Unit (what other grieving parent has one of those!?) he did not know about, far less read, any of the other books on the Madeleine case. I believe this to be especially relevant to the case.