Next Trial Date

aiyoyo wrote:

sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other -  but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.

sallypelt wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other -  but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.

What we know is from the newspapers, as SY is saying nothing. And we all know how "accurate" our toilet paper newspapers can be.

PeterMac wrote:But the dogs didn't find anything,  they really didn't,  they were wrong '  they are notoriously unreliable   really, honestly  they were acting, they were playing to the camera


No, McCann, curse thyself, curse Lucifer,
That hath deprived thee of the joys of heaven.
The clock strikes twelve.
Oh, it strikes, it strikes! Now body turn to air,
Or Lucifer will bear thee quick to hell.
Oh soul, be changed into little water drops
And fall into the ocean, ne'er be found.
My God, my God, look not so fierce on me.
Adders and serpents, let me breathe awhile.
Ugly hell, gape not, come not, Lucifer!

plebgate wrote:IF the newpaper report is correct that witnesses will be asked whether they killed Maddie,  could that one question affect the result of the libel hearing next week?

Brunt posted that final legal argument will be heard next week.   Is it possible that Rocky's solicitors will be able to use this info. (IF correct) next week?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Portia wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Is it a libel trial?  I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM.  Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time.  Thanks.

LIR, you understand correctly

With due respect, Portia, that's not quite right.

Some, including IIRC Textusa, have made a big song-and-dance saying it's NOT a libel trial, but it's a damages trial, and that we shouldn't call it a libel trial but a damages trial.

Again, with all due respect, this is complete nonsense - and it is wholly wrong to draw an artificial distinction between a libel trial and a damages trial.

The legal situation in the trial of McCanns v. Amaral is no different from any comparable libel trial in the U.K.


The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all.

The Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and the Supreme Court (March 2011) ruled that, pending the final libel trial, it was reasonable to allow Goncalo Amaral's book to be sold once again. I think the Court of Appeal judgment is available to read on CMOMM in English; if not, it is certainly available elsewhere on the net.

When it makes its final decision, the Lisbon Court will have to pay special attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the so-called 'Free Speech' article.

In terms, this says that we all in Europe have the legal right to free speech, EXCEPT in limited circumstances such as, e.g. speech inciting hate or violence, or - relevant in this case - harming the reputation of others.

At the heart of this case will be whether Goncalo Amaral has told the truth, or whether he was reasonable to publish his opinion of what was the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

First base is for the McCanns to establish that they have been libelled - that their reputation has been damaged. If they fail to establish this, then they have lost, and can expect a big costs bill from the courts and from Goncalo Amaral and his lawyers.

IF they succeed in establishing this, THEN and ONLY THEN can the court look at how much damages should be paid to the McCanns.

Also, Ladyinred suggests that any damages would be "because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM".

REPLY: No, it is much wider than that. Look at the libel writ. It basically asks for damages because of the ruinous effect on their health - Amaral's alleged libels are claimed to have caused them all manner of dreadful things...permanent emotional distress, indefinable fear, insomnia, anxiety etc. etc.

And IF the judge gets to that point, she will no doubt have to consider any medical evidence about the harm done to the McCanns' health (the Court doesn't seem to have received any) and - if they have been harmed - how much is due to the mystery abductor and how much is due to Goncalo Amaral's book.

Another issue to be decided is whether the McCanns can make a claim on behalf of Madeleine, which forms part of their claim for damages as set out in their libel writ, back in June 2009. That doesn't look terribly likely after the Court obtained particulars of the 2007 Wardship proceedings from the High Court last year

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

j.rob wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

Yes, I agree. Because if Amaral's conclusion is true. If Madeleine is dead and the parents pretended she had been abducted, then how could the publication of his book have hindered the search for Madeleine? 

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all. 

I would imagine this is quite tricky seeing as there is no evidence of a mystery abduction and also given the huge number of discrepancies in the Tapas 9 witness statements. Plus also changing their statements. Plus there is evidence from sniffer dogs that a dead body was in their apartment, and on Kate's clothes and in their hire car.

How nice that, for once, the McCanns have to prove something. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" - Gerry McCann.

canada12 wrote:

j.rob wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

Yes, I agree. Because if Amaral's conclusion is true. If Madeleine is dead and the parents pretended she had been abducted, then how could the publication of his book have hindered the search for Madeleine? 

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all. 

I would imagine this is quite tricky seeing as there is no evidence of a mystery abduction and also given the huge number of discrepancies in the Tapas 9 witness statements. Plus also changing their statements. Plus there is evidence from sniffer dogs that a dead body was in their apartment, and on Kate's clothes and in their hire car.

How nice that, for once, the McCanns have to prove something. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" - Gerry McCann.

Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?
Curious, because if they're able to get a warrant to access her records without the parents' permission, then they could easily discover whether or not Madeleine had a coloboma.
If no coloboma, then that's fraud right there, isn't it, re: the Fund?

canada12 wrote:

Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?

Tony Bennett wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?

Contrary to sharonl's answer above, actually, the answer is 'Yes' - consent is needed.

It is a vexed and topical question here at the moment, as per this article recently in The Guardian:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Both patients and doctors regard the privacy of medical records as sacrosanct.

The police have recently started making noises about demanding the right to see medical notes of people as and when they want to - one of them being Sir Peter Fahy of Greater Manchester Police.

He is best known at the moment for a comprehensive failure by him and his officers to prevent organised sexual abuse over two decades by vicious gangs in Rochdale and Manchester.

I doubt, however, if the police could solve many crimes by having greater access to medical records. The reasons given by Fahy seem spurious.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, if Madeleine had been abducted as claimed, I cannot think that many parents would refuse access to their child's medical records.

The McCanns' refusal to disclose them invited suspicion about why they did refuse

sharonl wrote:

As Madeleine is a ward of court, would permission be sought from her parents, or from her legal guardian?

Tony Bennett wrote:

sharonl wrote:

As Madeleine is a ward of court, would permission be sought from her parents, or from her legal guardian?

The Wardship Order doesn't replace parental rights and responsibilities. The McCanns keep them. 

It is a kind of 'extra' - the High Court has extra powers to intervene on Madeleine's behalf. 

If they wanted Madeleine's medical records, they would have to ask the Drs McCann.

If they refused, I don't think the High Court could help, the police would have to go to a judge to get a Court Order to seize the records.

Silverspeed wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Joana Morais @xklamation    ·  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Trial update: "Same judge" "Ended. Jan 21st for reading of proven facts. Not verdict yet. Will update later" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]