Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Portuguese Police Investigation :: McCanns v Dr Gonçalo Amaral + ECHR
Page 8 of 15 • Share
Page 8 of 15 • 1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 11 ... 15
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-plot-thickens.html
The plot thickens......
Yesterday, 28th April 2015, the media reported that the McCanns had been awarded varying figures from the damages trial they instigated against Goncalo Amaral. We were very sceptical as to whether the news was genuine, or whether it was simply more dirty tricks from team McCann, the like of which we saw on January 21st 2015, when someone, rumoured to be Isabel Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, told the Lusa News Agency that the McCann's had won the trial against Goncalo.
For those of you who don't know what the Lusa News Agency is, it is basically a 51% state owned organization, that gathers reports and articles, press and news companies can then access this information, and use it to publish news through their outlets. As Sky News and various others did yesterday.
What took us all by surprise as events unfolded, was that the press were getting these stories before Goncalo's legal team were. This just didn't make sense at all The verdict was always supposed to be sent to both parties in writing.
So why didn't Goncalo's team have the documentation?
The answer to that is quite astonishing.
Isabel Duarte got her hands on the document before it passed through Citius, the judicial network, she then passed it on to several journalists.
The documentation that she was passing round yesterday, bore no official authentication. It couldn't possibly have done, as it hadn't passed through the full legal process.
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
We will update this blog for you to judge for yourselves, just as soon as we have more information.
Some big questions remain though.
How was confidential information leaked to Isabel Duarte?
Did Isabel Duarte obtain these documents illegally?
Has Isabel Duarte breached legal protocol by passing unofficial documentation onto the press?
and most importantly, could this jeopardise the entire verdict?
Centre of a judicial storm, Isabel Duarte (above)
One thing is for sure it opens the door for an official complaint from Goncalo Amaral's legal team, who yesterday couldn't publicly comment to the many calls from the media, as they didn't have any information with which to do so.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
That truly shows up ID for what she is.
If that is not proof enough for the Judge how dodgy ID is, I don't know what will.
If that is not proof enough for the Judge how dodgy ID is, I don't know what will.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Joana Morais @xklamation 18m18 minutes ago
@KSLPinto Seems the #mccann couple is going to pay 58,30% of the main legal action costs & Amaral 41,70%, they lost several of their demands
@KSLPinto Seems the #mccann couple is going to pay 58,30% of the main legal action costs & Amaral 41,70%, they lost several of their demands
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
And those costs must be HUGE!!!aiyoyo wrote:Joana Morais @xklamation 18m18 minutes ago
@KSLPinto Seems the #mccann couple is going to pay 58,30% of the main legal action costs & Amaral 41,70%, they lost several of their demands
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Yes Sally I understand that. Justice it seems, is only available to the wealthy and we'll connected.
snook- Posts : 295
Activity : 329
Likes received : 24
Join date : 2013-10-17
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
WHAT....then how can they say they won !aiyoyo wrote:Joana Morais @xklamation 18m18 minutes ago
@KSLPinto Seems the #mccann couple is going to pay 58,30% of the main legal action costs & Amaral 41,70%, they lost several of their demands
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
SNOOK, from what I understand of "winning cases", we may be in for a big surprise. They may end up paying in costs, far more than they have won in "damages". I have seen it ALL before.snook wrote:Yes Sally I understand that. Justice it seems, is only available to the wealthy and we'll connected.
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
We can certainly hope so!
snook- Posts : 295
Activity : 329
Likes received : 24
Join date : 2013-10-17
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Fingers crossed then !!! Legs, arms too, in fact any darn thing at all, cross it !!!sallypelt wrote:SNOOK, from what I understand of "winning cases", we may be in for a big surprise. They may end up paying in costs, far more than they have won in "damages". I have seen it ALL before.snook wrote:Yes Sally I understand that. Justice it seems, is only available to the wealthy and we'll connected.
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
sallypelt wrote:And those costs must be HUGE!!!aiyoyo wrote:Joana Morais @xklamation 18m18 minutes ago
@KSLPinto Seems the #mccann couple is going to pay 58,30% of the main legal action costs & Amaral 41,70%, they lost several of their demands
Wont surpass the award, IMO.
The costs will be in the 100K region I'd think.
I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Wowsers!aiyoyo wrote:http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-plot-thickens.html
The plot thickens......
Yesterday, 28th April 2015, the media reported that the McCanns had been awarded varying figures from the damages trial they instigated against Goncalo Amaral. We were very sceptical as to whether the news was genuine, or whether it was simply more dirty tricks from team McCann, the like of which we saw on January 21st 2015, when someone, rumoured to be Isabel Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, told the Lusa News Agency that the McCann's had won the trial against Goncalo.
For those of you who don't know what the Lusa News Agency is, it is basically a 51% state owned organization, that gathers reports and articles, press and news companies can then access this information, and use it to publish news through their outlets. As Sky News and various others did yesterday.
What took us all by surprise as events unfolded, was that the press were getting these stories before Goncalo's legal team were. This just didn't make sense at all The verdict was always supposed to be sent to both parties in writing.
So why didn't Goncalo's team have the documentation?
The answer to that is quite astonishing.
Isabel Duarte got her hands on the document before it passed through Citius, the judicial network, she then passed it on to several journalists.
The documentation that she was passing round yesterday, bore no official authentication. It couldn't possibly have done, as it hadn't passed through the full legal process.
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
We will update this blog for you to judge for yourselves, just as soon as we have more information.
Some big questions remain though.
How was confidential information leaked to Isabel Duarte?
Did Isabel Duarte obtain these documents illegally?
Has Isabel Duarte breached legal protocol by passing unofficial documentation onto the press?
and most importantly, could this jeopardise the entire verdict?
Centre of a judicial storm, Isabel Duarte (above)
One thing is for sure it opens the door for an official complaint from Goncalo Amaral's legal team, who yesterday couldn't publicly comment to the many calls from the media, as they didn't have any information with which to do so.
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
sallypelt wrote:SNOOK, from what I understand of "winning cases", we may be in for a big surprise. They may end up paying in costs, far more than they have won in "damages". I have seen it ALL before.snook wrote:Yes Sally I understand that. Justice it seems, is only available to the wealthy and we'll connected.
That may be true, but let's not forget that the McCanns will receive the £430k windfall. They also have a well-stocked £1m+ fund. Will there be much left of the £430k after tax and legal bills? Maybe not a great deal, but in some sense their claim that "it was never about the money" is true. What they wanted was the PR coup of a win - which they got beyond their wildest dreams. Public perception was the end-game of the exercise and in that they have been completely successful - just look at the collected headlines across the Internet and Newspaper shelves.
The same cannot be said for Amaral who will have to pay the £430k plus his share of what could be substantial legal costs. He is ruined.
Bishop Brennan- Posts : 695
Activity : 920
Likes received : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Bishop Brennan wrote:sallypelt wrote:SNOOK, from what I understand of "winning cases", we may be in for a big surprise. They may end up paying in costs, far more than they have won in "damages". I have seen it ALL before.snook wrote:Yes Sally I understand that. Justice it seems, is only available to the wealthy and we'll connected.
That may be true, but let's not forget that the McCanns will receive the £430k windfall. They also have a well-stocked £1m+ fund. Will there be much left of the £430k after tax and legal bills? Maybe not a great deal, but in some sense their claim that "it was never about the money" is true. What they wanted was the PR coup of a win - which they got beyond their wildest dreams. Public perception was the end-game of the exercise and in that they have been completely successful - just look at the collected headlines across the Internet and Newspaper shelves.
The same cannot be said for Amaral who will have to pay the £430k plus his share of what could be substantial legal costs. He is ruined.
Surely that is what they wanted above their much loved money and PR coup isn't it ?
Jamming- Posts : 134
Activity : 133
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-06-04
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Based on the link http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
Bit of a google translate marathon, (and some translations don’t come out right) but I think:
Mc’s were entitled to act on behalf of Madeline & GA’s objection to this dismissed.
However:
‘None of the other authors (MM, SM, AM) suffered, in our opinion, any direct damage to such facts.’
so at the end of the day it became irrelevant in any case.
There is a lot of Freedom of Expression stuff, but the ruling against Amaral does appear to be based on his privileged position:
‘In the concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes the introductory note of the book, was the freedom of expression that should give by imperative that reservation.
That's not what happened and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, give up the launch of the book, its sale with the issue of newspaper and the publication of the interview.
The temporal continuity and displays the intention to call for contradictory, in the public square, closing the investigation, comparing it with the thesis of the previous line of research, told as true by a former responsible for the same research.
In this form of resolving the conflict between the rights proves the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral for the purposes of Article 484 of Commission Civil Code.’
The ‘damages’ are iirc what GM & KM asked for, and correspond roughly to Amaral’s income from the book etc, with an 80k odd top-up.
‘It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).
The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095).
In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
The authors also call for compensation to be paid later for the costs it may incur with legal actions necessary to shake the offense committed (paragraph 4 of petitionary).’
Not sure about this, but it looks as though 58.3% of costs are down to the Mc’s & 41.7% to Amaral:
‘X. condemn the authors KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.’
No mention of the deferred costs from the previous cases, which were awarded against the Mc’s that I can see, so presumably this ruling still stands and these costs are now due.
No financial amount given for costs, but I imagine these costs are likely to be sufficient to bankrupt both sides.
eta.
Aiyoyo:
The costs will be in the 100K region I'd think.
I suspect you can probably add another '0' to that.
Bit of a google translate marathon, (and some translations don’t come out right) but I think:
Mc’s were entitled to act on behalf of Madeline & GA’s objection to this dismissed.
However:
‘None of the other authors (MM, SM, AM) suffered, in our opinion, any direct damage to such facts.’
so at the end of the day it became irrelevant in any case.
There is a lot of Freedom of Expression stuff, but the ruling against Amaral does appear to be based on his privileged position:
‘In the concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes the introductory note of the book, was the freedom of expression that should give by imperative that reservation.
That's not what happened and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, give up the launch of the book, its sale with the issue of newspaper and the publication of the interview.
The temporal continuity and displays the intention to call for contradictory, in the public square, closing the investigation, comparing it with the thesis of the previous line of research, told as true by a former responsible for the same research.
In this form of resolving the conflict between the rights proves the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral for the purposes of Article 484 of Commission Civil Code.’
The ‘damages’ are iirc what GM & KM asked for, and correspond roughly to Amaral’s income from the book etc, with an 80k odd top-up.
‘It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).
The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095).
In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
The authors also call for compensation to be paid later for the costs it may incur with legal actions necessary to shake the offense committed (paragraph 4 of petitionary).’
Not sure about this, but it looks as though 58.3% of costs are down to the Mc’s & 41.7% to Amaral:
‘X. condemn the authors KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.’
No mention of the deferred costs from the previous cases, which were awarded against the Mc’s that I can see, so presumably this ruling still stands and these costs are now due.
No financial amount given for costs, but I imagine these costs are likely to be sufficient to bankrupt both sides.
eta.
Aiyoyo:
The costs will be in the 100K region I'd think.
I suspect you can probably add another '0' to that.
Doug D- Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Jamming wrote:Bishop Brennan wrote:
The same cannot be said for Amaral who will have to pay the £430k plus his share of what could be substantial legal costs. He is ruined.
Surely that is what they wanted above their much loved money and PR coup isn't it ?
Fair point. Yes - in many ways this may be their biggest delight.
Bishop Brennan- Posts : 695
Activity : 920
Likes received : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Wowsers indeed.Joss wrote:Wowsers!aiyoyo wrote:http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-plot-thickens.html
The plot thickens......
Yesterday, 28th April 2015, the media reported that the McCanns had been awarded varying figures from the damages trial they instigated against Goncalo Amaral. We were very sceptical as to whether the news was genuine, or whether it was simply more dirty tricks from team McCann, the like of which we saw on January 21st 2015, when someone, rumoured to be Isabel Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, told the Lusa News Agency that the McCann's had won the trial against Goncalo.
For those of you who don't know what the Lusa News Agency is, it is basically a 51% state owned organization, that gathers reports and articles, press and news companies can then access this information, and use it to publish news through their outlets. As Sky News and various others did yesterday.
What took us all by surprise as events unfolded, was that the press were getting these stories before Goncalo's legal team were. This just didn't make sense at all The verdict was always supposed to be sent to both parties in writing.
So why didn't Goncalo's team have the documentation?
The answer to that is quite astonishing.
Isabel Duarte got her hands on the document before it passed through Citius, the judicial network, she then passed it on to several journalists.
The documentation that she was passing round yesterday, bore no official authentication. It couldn't possibly have done, as it hadn't passed through the full legal process.
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
We will update this blog for you to judge for yourselves, just as soon as we have more information.
Some big questions remain though.
How was confidential information leaked to Isabel Duarte?
Did Isabel Duarte obtain these documents illegally?
Has Isabel Duarte breached legal protocol by passing unofficial documentation onto the press?
and most importantly, could this jeopardise the entire verdict?
Centre of a judicial storm, Isabel Duarte (above)
One thing is for sure it opens the door for an official complaint from Goncalo Amaral's legal team, who yesterday couldn't publicly comment to the many calls from the media, as they didn't have any information with which to do so.
Thanks also to Sallypelt for her posts. Feeling a bit more hopeful after reading them and the above.
Sending best wishes to GA and hope that he does have the fight in him to keep going.
As Tony posted, it is not over til the fat lady sings.
plebgate- Posts : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Judgement
X. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
----------------------------------------
UK Madia not 'screaming' about THAT, are they?
Love the 'perpetrators' bit!
Is there any way of finding out what the libel case 'expense/costs' actually were?
And will the McCann 'costs' be 'deducted', by the court, directly, from their 'award' BEFORE they receive 'anything'
They 'dodged' the 'costs' of their last TWO 'losing' appeals, to get GA's book 'banned' didn't they?
As i understand it, GA's book is NOT 'banned' by this 'ruling', it just cannot be continued to be 'published' in the future.
Thus, i believe, the McCann's (AND their children) WILL have to 'pay' their LOSING 'costs' from their TWO losing book 'ban' appeals'.
Can the Appeal court, (book 'ban') where the McCanns AND their children, LOST 2 'appeals' deduct their losing 'costs' directly from the McCann's libel 'award'?
I repeat, GA's book is NOT 'banned', and the McCann's, AND their children, still have 'costs' awarded AGAINST them from their LOSING 'appeals' to get it banned.
Oh, the irony, IF the costs in their losing, book 'ban', appeal cases and the libel case 'costs' against McCann's, and their children, amounted to, say, £358,000!
Come on, UK Madia, lets see you PRINT about the libel case and book 'ban' costs awarded AGAINST the McCann's for which they are 'liable'!
X. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
----------------------------------------
UK Madia not 'screaming' about THAT, are they?
Love the 'perpetrators' bit!
Is there any way of finding out what the libel case 'expense/costs' actually were?
And will the McCann 'costs' be 'deducted', by the court, directly, from their 'award' BEFORE they receive 'anything'
They 'dodged' the 'costs' of their last TWO 'losing' appeals, to get GA's book 'banned' didn't they?
As i understand it, GA's book is NOT 'banned' by this 'ruling', it just cannot be continued to be 'published' in the future.
Thus, i believe, the McCann's (AND their children) WILL have to 'pay' their LOSING 'costs' from their TWO losing book 'ban' appeals'.
Can the Appeal court, (book 'ban') where the McCanns AND their children, LOST 2 'appeals' deduct their losing 'costs' directly from the McCann's libel 'award'?
I repeat, GA's book is NOT 'banned', and the McCann's, AND their children, still have 'costs' awarded AGAINST them from their LOSING 'appeals' to get it banned.
Oh, the irony, IF the costs in their losing, book 'ban', appeal cases and the libel case 'costs' against McCann's, and their children, amounted to, say, £358,000!
Come on, UK Madia, lets see you PRINT about the libel case and book 'ban' costs awarded AGAINST the McCann's for which they are 'liable'!
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.aiyoyo wrote:I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.
You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.
At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.
Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16903
Activity : 24767
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Thank you Tony. That is a possible explanation.
It appears as though Clarrie did not make a comment on the costs when he announced how delighted they were, I wonder whether any journalists will be asking them about that?
It appears as though Clarrie did not make a comment on the costs when he announced how delighted they were, I wonder whether any journalists will be asking them about that?
plebgate- Posts : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Tony Bennett wrote:It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.aiyoyo wrote:I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.
You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.
At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.
Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?
No idea if Portuguese Court functions the same way as UK.
But my educated guess is: it is NOT.
Otherwise wouldn't team Amaral have been given one, and would know how ID got hers?
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Maybe the decision was embargoed, but ID couldn't control herself. Who knows? Dr Amaral's side is keeping quiet, but they obviously know by now. Interesting times ahead, I feel.aiyoyo wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.aiyoyo wrote:I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.
You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.
At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.
Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?
No idea if Portuguese Court functions the same way as UK.
But my educated guess is: it is NOT.
Otherwise wouldn't team Amaral have been given one, and would know how ID got hers?
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Tony Bennett wrote:It may be similar to what happens in High Court civil actions here - and as happened in my case in 2013.aiyoyo wrote:I'm more interested to know how ID got her hands on the document even before it was officially stamped for release (assuming the document she released is authentic) ?
Court rules say that the Judge must send a DRAFT of the final decision to both parties, really to check for technical errors, like dates and spellings of names. You can possibly challenge other things if you can demonstrate e.g. that he has got a fact wrong in some way.
You have something like 7 working days to challenge anything in writing. Only when the judge has considered all of these minor proposed amendments by either party can he proceed to read out or publish his decision.
At the same time, by the way, the parties are reminded in very stern terms not to disclose the draft decision to ANYONE ELSE.
Could this be what's happened here? - Isabel Duaretee has communicetaed the draft decision to someone, when she shouldn't have?
Be great if any technical errors were to include some accidental zeroes on the money awarded... just wishful thinking
Jamming- Posts : 134
Activity : 133
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-06-04
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Somebody should take a look at her bank account/s to see if there are any recent very large deposits. Why else put your career and reputation on the line?aiyoyo wrote:That truly shows up ID for what she is.
If that is not proof enough for the Judge how dodgy ID is, I don't know what will.
Time will tell - or will it?
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 35069
Activity : 42327
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
Jim Gamble@JimGamble_INEQE [/color][/u][size=13]33m33 minutes ago
@magsmags @BBCWorld lol. The shame is all his. Unprofessional & IMO inexcusable behaviour that damaged the search for a missing child.
Hmm...JG is very professional hey?
Using twitter to defend a set of parents who admitted to children neglect on national tv.
Did he not think his behavior is inexcusable and BIASED when he should be neutral given his position? His conduct is definitely questionable.
Hmm...JG is very professional hey?
Using twitter to defend a set of parents who admitted to children neglect on national tv.
Did he not think his behavior is inexcusable and BIASED when he should be neutral given his position? His conduct is definitely questionable.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial
His professionalism is breathtakingaiyoyo wrote:Jim Gamble@JimGamble_INEQE [/color][/u][size=13]33m33 minutes ago@magsmags@BBCWorld lol. The shame is all his. Unprofessional & IMO inexcusable behaviour that damaged the search for a missing child.
Hmm...JG is very professional hey?
Using twitter to defend a set of parents who admitted to children neglect on national tv.
Did he not think his behavior is inexcusable and BIASED when he should be neutral given his position? His conduct is definitely questionable.
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Page 8 of 15 • 1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 11 ... 15
Similar topics
» Gerry McCann may be witness at libel trial tomorrow - Jerry Lawton **UPDATE** TRIAL ABANDONED FOR TODAY
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» LAST DAY OF LIBEL TRIAL 8th July 2014 DISCUSSION AND NEWS
» The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» LAST DAY OF LIBEL TRIAL 8th July 2014 DISCUSSION AND NEWS
» The January 2015 McCanns v Amaral hearing on the facts - what did the Portuguese Court of Appeal say about the facts?
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Portuguese Police Investigation :: McCanns v Dr Gonçalo Amaral + ECHR
Page 8 of 15
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum