Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial

Ladyinred wrote:"The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

The enormous disconnect between her demeanour in court / the written findings - and the extraordinary cash award is what has shocked everyone on both sides.  Did TPTB sense (as everybody else did) that the trial had slipped away from the McCanns and step in somehow...?  

As [aiyoyo] rightly points out she has had to ignore ALL of the evidence given in court and write a jurisprudence essay on competing rights. She could in fact have written this essay at any point - no need even for a trial and all its delays.  And in fact that very same balance of competing rights was pretty much what the Supreme Court ruled on during the book appeal.  

Up until now, the appeal courts seem to have been immune from external influence, and I can't imagine they will take kindly to their ruling being overturned - the Lisbon judge effectively telling them that they got it wrong...!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

The enormous disconnect between her demeanour in court / the written findings - and the extraordinary cash award is what has shocked everyone on both sides.  Did TPTB sense (as everybody else did) that the trial had slipped away from the McCanns and step in somehow...?  

As [aiyoyo] rightly points out she has had to ignore ALL of the evidence given in court and write a jurisprudence essay on competing rights. She could in fact have written this essay at any point - no need even for a trial and all its delays.  And in fact that very same balance of competing rights was pretty much what the Supreme Court ruled on during the book appeal.  

Up until now, the appeal courts seem to have been immune from external influence, and I can't imagine they will take kindly to their ruling being overturned - the Lisbon judge effectively telling them that they got it wrong...!

Another very curious aspect of the decision appears to have been the complete absence, so far as I could see, of any qualified and independent medical evidence to back up the McCanns' claims of 'irreparable emotional damage, perpetual insomnia, loss of appetite', or whatever other emotional and physical ailments they were claiming.

In a British court, in such a case, expert psychiatric and medical evidence would have been called - and no doubt challenged by the other parties and the judge.

But there was none of it.

Apart, that is, from that Alan Pike bloke, who claimed he was a psychologist and then admitted in court that he wasn't. In fact, he had been an advocate of the McCanns from Day One, flown over one presumes at the expense of Bell Pottinger or the British government (or both), and no way could be classed as 'independent'.

Moreover, there was quite a bit of evidence during the trial process about whether - to the extent that the McCanns actually were emotionally damaged -

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

whether this alleged damage was caused more by the loss of their beloved first-born daughter or by Amaral's book, or 'work' as Clarence Mitchell once contemptuously called it.

There was nothing about that in the final verdict either AFAIK.

Yet the judge awarded every penny (sorry, every cent) they claimed for their emotional damage.

Two very good points for whichever lawyer appeals this to the Appeal Court, I would have thought!

BlueBag wrote:

endgame wrote:What I find most bizarre about the judgement, and I hope that this provides some basis for appeal, is that the judge found almost all of the McCanns' allegations not proven and only one partially proven - yet awarded them individually almost all of what they had claimed for the whole set of alleged list of damages. It would be reasonable to expect that if £250K was the required sum for the total individual claim, then if the claim were only partially accepted, there would be a commensurate reduction in the amount awarded. To say in effect that "I only accept that you have proved one tenth of your case but I'll award you nine tenths of what you have claimed" defies any kind of rationale.

Unless the judge was inviting an appeal.

Tony Bennett wrote:Yet the judge awarded every penny (sorry, every cent) they claimed for their emotional damage.

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Yet the judge awarded every penny (sorry, every cent) they claimed for their emotional damage.

And then took it all back again by awarding 58.7% of the costs AGAINST them.

And a further 50% from the other case to be paid by both parent and by the TWINS, whom they had joined in the action, one supposes to try to gain the sympathy vote.
As it is they seem to have burdened the twins with a financial liability.

Bishop Brennan wrote:
It may in fact be the ONLY way to award a win and 500k to the McCanns DESPITE the complete lack of credible evidence.  

Not as simple as that I should think.  
Look at it this way - for argument sake, even if say evidence supports an award, why the unprecedented size of award (nearly 4 times the historic records iirc)?
Why the need to write a jurisprudence essay on competing rights just to justify breaking the record?

Personally, I think her jurisprudence essay has got to do with her putting one over the higher level Courts. It's the only possible way she can rule in Mcs favour ie by over riding the higher courts using this method.  As you rightly noticed, the verdict is an enormous disconnect between her demeanor in court, and also the size of award does not reconcile with proportion of her established proven and unproven facts.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the deliberate unprecedented hugh award size shows malice towards Amaral, which in turn reveals a hidden biased I should think.

There must be a compelling (and probably not so innocent) reason for her to write a last minute essay on jurisprudence on competing rights, when that was never raised or hinted as a possible issue for deliberation point. Otherwise you'd think this angle would have been covered by lawyers.

Appeal court deliberates on lawyers submitted documentations with no court session involved if I am not wrong, so the process is completely different from a trial court.  

 The enormous disconnect between her demeanour in court / the written findings - and the extraordinary cash award is what has shocked everyone on both sides.  Did TPTB sense (as everybody else did) that the trial had slipped away from the McCanns and step in somehow...?  

The disconnect hints at a darker force influence, either that, or a biased.

As you rightly point out she has had to ignore ALL of the evidence given in court and write a jurisprudence essay on competing rights. She could in fact have written this essay at any point - no need even for a trial and all its delays.  And in fact that very same balance of competing rights was pretty much what the Supreme Court ruled on during the book appeal.  Except that this judge has now come to a different conclusion...      

Would be interesting to know what had precipitated the delays, and if that had any influence on her deliberation method?

Up until now, the appeal courts seem to have been immune from external influence, and I can't imagine they will take kindly to their ruling being overturned - the Lisbon judge effectively telling them that they got it wrong...!

Quite.  Effectively !  
One Lisbon Judge against at least 4 (3 judges of 2nd Instance Court and presuming one more (if not more) at the Highest Appeal Court).  That's quite a take on !

Be interesting to watch what pans out after this..... if this Lisbon Judge is going to be admonished like the "wet behind the ears" judge in the first instance court?

After what looked like a knock-out blow yesterday, perhaps there is still a round or two left in this fight...    

30 Apr 2015

A Message From Gonçalo Amaral

Joss wrote:This is good news, raised over $2k in one day already for GA's defense fund
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to the ECHR the presumption of innocence prohibits the premature expression of opinions or belief in guilt  by the courts and in addition bans the claims of any public servants  involved in procedures which might lead the public to believe in the culpability of  suspects under investigation. In the  Karaman process deriving from the German courts it has been held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing the undermining of a fair  trial by damaging statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the court itself of the opinion that a suspect is guilty but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority.

The Allen process deriving from the UK emphasizes the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases being treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection -the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving- the presumption of innocence is illusory or merely ideal.”

jimuck wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Silverspeed wrote:An appalling headline to this article although hardly surprising.

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

That article is interesting not for its headline but because it contains the first indications of the imminent wind-down of Operation Grange.

McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search.’’

A statement that implies to me that OG will be winding down shortly and that it will wind down without a result.

One thing I thought most had learned from 8 years of Clarence Mitchell, was not to believe a single letter that comes out of this persons mouth.

Operation Grange and previous investigations have IMO done their job.

worriedmum wrote:I'm just snipping the following (lengthy) section from Blacksmith's latest offering, reproducing the reasons for the judgement against Snr Amaral


''In the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, employees and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice.

According to the ECHR the presumption of innocence prohibits the premature expression of opinions or belief in guilt  by the courts and in addition bans the claims of any public servants  involved in procedures which might lead the public to believe in the culpability of  suspects under investigation. In the  Karaman process deriving from the German courts it has been held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing the undermining of a fair  trial by damaging statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the court itself of the opinion that a suspect is guilty but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority.

The Allen process deriving from the UK emphasizes the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases being treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection -the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving- the presumption of innocence is illusory or merely ideal.”

Does this mean that the judge wishes to avoid pre-judgement and wishes to uphold the right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty?

Joss wrote:This is good news, raised over $2k in one day already for GA's defense fund
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wahrheit wrote:I haven't read everything (forgive me) but from the sound of it the Judge has decide that the "right to a good name" trumps the right to freedom of expression. I find this interesting as "the authors'" name has been tarnished by their own, admitted serious neglect which was the proximate cause of the tragedy, they claim. Nonetheless, she assessed the quantum at the claimed amount. Certainly, if one is accused without proof of a terrible crime but one has admitted gross negligence, and been fortunate to escape criminal consequences for it, then there is some theoretical "damage" but one would have thought that there would have been more of a symbolic award to reflect the facts and their "standing" in terms of reputation.

Nina wrote:For any members who wish to contribute,this is the thread we have on Hideho's Facebook group.


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

ChippyM wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

 
 I think probably the most important thing to them is public perception. What Mitchell said implies that SY, after spending millions of pounds and years cannot solve this mystery, it is as the parents said, almost inexplicable in what they say happened and and will never be solved like the riddle of the sphinx or the mystery of the pyramids. He is also confirming that the Mc's will only use the money for the futile act of continuing the search.

  I believe them when they say the libel trial was never about the money, again the public perception is what they were fighting for. If most of the public glance at a headline and see that Amaral has 'legally' been declared a liar then that is worth more than the money. I'm sure they will enjoy the money and destroying their enemy as a bonus.

Doug D wrote:Warhelt (6.45):
‘from the sound of it the Judge has decide that the "right to a good name" trumps the right to freedom of expression.’
 
The judgement makes no sense whatever as, even though the book came out only a few days after the case was archived and the PJ files released (which the judge did not seem to like), the files revealed in their full glory the facts which have been held up against Amaral, and were therefore already in the public domain.
 
Judgement:
‘There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.’
 
As the information was already in the public domain, the answer can only be ‘none’ to these criteria, in which case, logically, no damages should have been awarded.
 
However, she has clearly equated the award very much to ‘the value of benefits earned by one with the offense’.
 
It is almost as if she has fined him for what she considers was ‘using privileged information’ as the book had to have been written prior to the archiving date, and therefore Amaral was subject to the Portuguese equivalent of our Official Secrets Act, and this frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with case.