Re: The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?

by woodforthetrees 22.01.15 14:29

Joss wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Joss wrote:Why would the McCann's get any monetary compensation at all? They have not proven their case against Goncalo Amaral. And i certainly don't think the Judge will rule against the initial ruling about the book seeing the verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, why would she? Even if she wanted to, i don't think it is possible. There is no case from what i read. The McC's could just as well say all the so called internet trolls have caused them distress as well. Are they going to sue all of them as well, seeing as the info is in the public domain? And what about some of the other docos that are out in cyberspace that go against the McC's version of what happened to Madeleine, is that causing them problems too?
They don't have to prove their case against Amaral, the shelving of the PJ case and the various closed/on-going investigations since the shelving are enough for that. Additional distress and defamation is easy to prove based on number of 'views' of the book/DVD and the increase in anti-McCann comments seen since the publishing. However, the exactly amount of additional distress (i.e the value of the compensation) is almost impossible to quantify. If they get a tiny payout, they will appeal, if it's big they'll smile and walk away.

I agree, the book will not be banned, even if they do win a payout, as the theory is neither proven or dis-proven (i.e there are on-going investigations)

re the bit in bold... they cannot do this as they have publicly stated that they actively avoid going on twitter and facebook to avoid the trolls. As such, it would get thrown out of court at the first hurdle.

Also, internet trolls don't profit from hate messages, therefore there is no incentive for the McCanns to go after them.

re other stuff on the internet e.g Richard Halls documentary.... he has stated it's free, therefore no prospect of compo from him to the McCanns, so it would be a 100% cost to them to get this removed. I think they are nearly out of money now so until they get the next payout, these will be lower down the list of priorities.

With the Amaral case, they are basically stating that he has has defamed their character based on unproven information, which is at this point in time, true. Not only that, but there is proof he has profited from doing so which means he also has the means to compensate them for this defamation.
Yes they do have a case to prove against GA, of any damages he has caused them.

Perhaps i wasn't clear on that point, i mean 'prove their case v's that of Amarals', i.e their guilt, as this is being investigated/supported/proved with on-going investigations (of which the McCanns are deemed wholly innocent by SY)

by jeanmonroe 22.01.15 15:24

Me, being pedantic,.......... probably,

How can one claim, and claim 'damages' for, to 'be suffering' from an INDEFINABLE 'fear' when that 'fear' has not been 'defined' or, indeed, 'proven', beyond doubt, to even 'exist'?

"Mr and Mrs McCann, what exactly is this indefinable fear, you claim you are suffering from, in your libel case claim?"

" Er, um, we don't know exactly what it is, that's why it's indefinable, M'Lady, but our lawyers said put it in the list of symptoms, we are suffering, so we must be, and are, suffering from it, M'Lady, innit?"

"On this point, i find, that your particular claim, of indefinable fear, not PROVEN"

"But, BUT, the dogs never found anything, M'lady!"

by Joss 22.01.15 15:54

jeanmonroe wrote:Me, being pedantic,.......... probably,

How can one claim, and claim 'damages' for, to 'be suffering' from an INDEFINABLE 'fear' when that 'fear' has not been 'defined' or, indeed, 'proven', beyond doubt, to even 'exist'?

Exactly, if you can't define the fear then you can't define what the source of that fear is either i would think?

by NickE 22.01.15 16:34

"Double post"

by Daryl Dixon 22.01.15 17:00

Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.

by tiny 22.01.15 17:05

Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.

which part of the summing up makes you think that

by Joss 22.01.15 17:12

Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.

I actually hope GA will have his own litigation against the McC's for damages in the near future.

by Daryl Dixon 22.01.15 17:17

tiny wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that

This one, tiny

Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

by Joss 22.01.15 17:25

Daryl Dixon wrote:
tiny wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny

Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

So they wouldn't feel any of those things just because their daughter was missing then, but because Amaral wrote a book about the investigation and to preserve the integrity of his name against vicious claims made against him. I call BS on the McC's BS, and i hope the judge sees right through them.

by Montclair 22.01.15 17:48

woodforthetrees wrote:
Joss wrote:Why would the McCann's get any monetary compensation at all? They have not proven their case against Goncalo Amaral. And i certainly don't think the Judge will rule against the initial ruling about the book seeing the verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, why would she? Even if she wanted to, i don't think it is possible. There is no case from what i read. The McC's could just as well say all the so called internet trolls have caused them distress as well. Are they going to sue all of them as well, seeing as the info is in the public domain? And what about some of the other docos that are out in cyberspace that go against the McC's version of what happened to Madeleine, is that causing them problems too?
They don't have to prove their case against Amaral, the shelving of the PJ case and the various closed/on-going investigations since the shelving are enough for that. Additional distress and defamation is easy to prove based on number of 'views' of the book/DVD and the increase in anti-McCann comments seen since the publishing. However, the exactly amount of additional distress (i.e the value of the compensation) is almost impossible to quantify. If they get a tiny payout, they will appeal, if it's big they'll smile and walk away.

I agree, the book will not be banned, even if they do win a payout, as the theory is neither proven or dis-proven (i.e there are on-going investigations)

re the bit in bold... they cannot do this as they have publicly stated that they actively avoid going on twitter and facebook to avoid the trolls. As such, it would get thrown out of court at the first hurdle.

Also, internet trolls don't profit from hate messages, therefore there is no incentive for the McCanns to go after them.

re other stuff on the internet e.g Richard Halls documentary.... he has stated it's free, therefore no prospect of compo from him to the McCanns, so it would be a 100% cost to them to get this removed. I think they are nearly out of money now so until they get the next payout, these will be lower down the list of priorities.

With the Amaral case, they are basically stating that he has has defamed their character based on unproven information, which is at this point in time, true. Not only that, but there is proof he has profited from doing so which means he also has the means to compensate them for this defamation.

In Portugal, the plaintiffs, the McCanns, have to prove their case against Gonçalo Amaral and they have been unable to do so. So, I am completely baffled by some here stating that the couple will win. Perhaps you better tell the defense lawyers that because it seems that they are optimistic about the outcome of this case. I think that they would know more than any of you.

by tiny 22.01.15 17:54

Daryl Dixon wrote:
tiny wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny

Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal

I thought this bit came with 13

by Montclair 22.01.15 17:57

tiny wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
tiny wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:Following yesterdays summing up, there is no doubt in my mind that Snr Amaral will have to pay compensation to the McCanns. The only thing that remains to be seen is the amount of compensation due.
which part of the summing up makes you think that
This one, tiny

Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal

I thought this bit came with 13

Yes, that bit does come with the question no. 13.

by tiny 22.01.15 18:17

Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

by Daryl Dixon 22.01.15 18:43

tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.

by tiny 22.01.15 18:55

Daryl Dixon wrote:
tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.

I believe the judge did say this, if it was Anne Guedes or Astro who translated this then I can see no reason why they would lie,so I will take their word
that this is a true translation.

by aiyoyo 22.01.15 19:10

Montclair wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Joss wrote:Why would the McCann's get any monetary compensation at all? They have not proven their case against Goncalo Amaral. And i certainly don't think the Judge will rule against the initial ruling about the book seeing the verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, why would she? Even if she wanted to, i don't think it is possible. There is no case from what i read. The McC's could just as well say all the so called internet trolls have caused them distress as well. Are they going to sue all of them as well, seeing as the info is in the public domain? And what about some of the other docos that are out in cyberspace that go against the McC's version of what happened to Madeleine, is that causing them problems too?
They don't have to prove their case against Amaral, the shelving of the PJ case and the various closed/on-going investigations since the shelving are enough for that. Additional distress and defamation is easy to prove based on number of 'views' of the book/DVD and the increase in anti-McCann comments seen since the publishing. However, the exactly amount of additional distress (i.e the value of the compensation) is almost impossible to quantify. If they get a tiny payout, they will appeal, if it's big they'll smile and walk away.

I agree, the book will not be banned, even if they do win a payout, as the theory is neither proven or dis-proven (i.e there are on-going investigations)

re the bit in bold... they cannot do this as they have publicly stated that they actively avoid going on twitter and facebook to avoid the trolls. As such, it would get thrown out of court at the first hurdle.

Also, internet trolls don't profit from hate messages, therefore there is no incentive for the McCanns to go after them.

re other stuff on the internet e.g Richard Halls documentary.... he has stated it's free, therefore no prospect of compo from him to the McCanns, so it would be a 100% cost to them to get this removed. I think they are nearly out of money now so until they get the next payout, these will be lower down the list of priorities.

With the Amaral case, they are basically stating that he has has defamed their character based on unproven information, which is at this point in time, true. Not only that, but there is proof he has profited from doing so which means he also has the means to compensate them for this defamation.
In Portugal, the plaintiffs, the McCanns, have to prove their case against Gonçalo Amaral and they have been unable to do so. So, I am completely baffled by some here stating that the couple will win. Perhaps you better tell the defense lawyers that because it seems that they are optimistic about the outcome of this case. I think that they would know more than any of you.

Yeap, in Portugal if you alleged it then you have to prove it. And in this respect the Mcs failed miserably.

You are not going to convince the pros that are in denial that the Mcs' train has derailed.

By all accounts, no matter how one reads the facts sheet - the proved vs unproved - it is lopsided with the Defence side on the top end.

This isn't even about Amaral's right to freedom of expression since the 2nd instance Court has taken care of that when it overturns the injunction and subsequent appeal rejected. That issue was already put to bed. I can't see how the Defence Team won't win this, otherwise how is another Court going to reverse the 2nd instance Court's definitive decision that is irreversible. It's impossible for the 'damages' case to result in a verdict that contradicts book unbanned.

The verdict has to reconcile with the no restriction on the release and sale of the book. It's clear there can only one inevitable verdict ie VICTORY to Defence side.

by Montclair 22.01.15 20:09

Daryl Dixon wrote:
tiny wrote:Thank you Montclair,so it seems @ DarylDixon you could be wrong on the payout.

It very much depends on whether you believe that the Judge actually said "ie it had an effect but that is perfectly normal". I myself do not. I think this is a personal opinion expressed by the person doing the translation. If you take that sentence away, what remains is not good news for Snr Amaral. I think we shall have to wait and see.

Sorry Darryl, that is exactly what the judge wrote in her document which she gave to the lawyers to read. Why would you believe that the person who did the translation would add something that wasn't there?

by ultimaThule 22.01.15 20:32

The words straws, at, and clutching come to mind, Montclair.

If, as Daryl Dixon suggests, the McCanns are in line for an immense payout, I would have thought that in order to fulfil their hope, as reported in the Daily Express today, that a verdict will be handed down next month, they will submit the relevant documents relating to the Wardship or make it clear to the Court that they are not authorised to represent Madeleine in the action no later than tomorrow.

by Daryl Dixon 22.01.15 20:46

ultimaThule wrote:The words straws, at, and clutching come to mind, Montclair.

If, as Daryl Dixon suggests, the McCanns are in line for an immense payout, I would have thought that in order to fulfil their hope, as reported in the Daily Express today, that a verdict will be handed down next month, they will submit the relevant documents relating to the Wardship or make it clear to the Court that they are not authorised to represent Madeleine in the action no later than tomorrow.

Why would you think that I have any reason to 'clutch at straws' with regard to what happens to the McCanns, ultimaThule?

And where have I suggested that the McCanns are in line for an 'immense' payout?

by plebgate 22.01.15 21:21

Here you are Daz Dix

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Jornal de Notícias claims that GA has told them that he is pleased with the decision. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Latest topics