The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Thanks Marcos by Blacksmith Bureau

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Thanks Marcos by Blacksmith Bureau

Post by Guest on 04.09.12 15:09

A link to this has been posted already, but it deserves it's own thread................





Tuesday, 4 September 2012





Thanks Marcos





We covered the archiving summary in considerable depth, not to argue a case about its meaning – the Lisbon appeal court has already done that definitively – but so that open-minded people with no knowledge of Portuguese law can get an idea of its critical importance in the libel case between the McCanns and Amaral. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Amaral’s claim that “the child died in the apartment and the parents simulated an abduction” is false.

What if?

But let’s lift off into fantasy for a moment and assume that somehow the judge accepts that Amaral's claim is, indeed, provably and utterly false. A triumph for the McCanns? You must be kidding.

In Portugal “It is up to the claimant to prove that what was said or written about him/her was false because in the event that the information published was at the time true, or that the client gave consent for this information to be released, or there was accidental publication, or a privileged person involved directly in the furtherance of the public’s interest had said or written the defamatory statement, then the claimant may have no case.”

So how are the parents going to climb this next hurdle – how will they show that Goncalo Amaral was not “a privileged person involved directly in the furtherance of the public’s interest"? Amaral investigated the case, with others, as a direct representative of the public interest. He chose to resign in order that he could bring his interpretation of the case to the public directly, something that he was forbidden to do while in PJ employ. It will, to say the least, be interesting to discover how the McCanns intend to challenge this status.
Higher


But now let’s take the stage two rocket into further fantasy and assume that Duarte has managed to convince the judge that Amaral didn’t have any such status but was just an average outsider repeating false rumours. Now we come to the last and best bit. Having fulfilled the first two requirements of Portuguese libel law the McCanns and their lawyers must fulfil the critical third and demonstrate that Amaral knew that what he was claiming was untrue.

Now that really is a tall order. Even Amaral’s greatest enemies have hesitated to claim that he didn’t believe in his “interpretation”, if only because the idea is simply laughable and cannot be made to fit in with the stubborn and unyielding consistency with which he has advanced his case over the last four years. But the McCanns will have to provide such proof.
Thanks Marcos





In the most delicious of ironies one of those enemies, the highly unstable Marcos Aragão Correia, has provided up-to-date case law on this requirement. A dedicated worker for the truth in Portugal, a good friend of ours whose explanations of Portuguese law we gratefully acknowledge, has drawn our attention to the judgement in the recent Amaral .v. Aragão Correia libel case.

The judge observed that Aragão Correia “fully believed Leonor Cipriano when she told him Goncalo Amaral had beaten her.” Aragão Correia’s belief in the veracity of her statement to him was enough, irrespective of whether Cipriano had actually told him the truth! In fact the judge stated she had not told him the truth and that Amaral had not taken part in any assault on Cipriano but because Aragão Correia had believed her he was going to acquit him of libel!

And the same goes for Goncalo Amaral – even if the PJ inspectors’ report of 2007 which set out the claims circulated by Amaral was a pack of lies from start to finish then as long as Amaral genuinely believed them he cannot be guilty of libel. So in the long run Aragão Correia may finally have got his way and made a historic contribution to the Madeleine McCann Affair. But not at all the one he wanted.
No one can ever be sure how a case will turn out and it is not impossible that Amaral will lose – but not on one individual’s misguided and shoddily reasoned whim, as was the case with prosecutor Menezes’ comments. That is why we've always wanted the case to come to court. If the McCanns win then the appeal court will ensure that the legal requirements outlined above have been met – and we will all gain from the information about the affair so provided. Otherwise the verdict will be overturned.



at 00:53

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thanks Marcos by Blacksmith Bureau

Post by Guest on 04.09.12 15:11

[quote]

And the same goes for Goncalo Amaral – even if the PJ inspectors’ report of 2007 which set out the claims circulated by Amaral was a pack of lies from start to finish then as long as Amaral genuinely believed them he cannot be guilty of libel. So in the long run Aragão Correia may finally have got his way and made a historic contribution to the Madeleine McCann Affair. But not at all the one he wanted.



This sounds like very good news for Mr Amaral.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

A strange but well-connected lawyer

Post by Tony Bennett on 04.09.12 15:37

candyfloss wrote:And the same goes for Goncalo Amaral – even if the PJ inspectors’ report of 2007 which set out the claims circulated by Amaral was a pack of lies from start to finish then as long as Amaral genuinely believed them he cannot be guilty of libel. So in the long run Aragão Correia may finally have got his way and made a historic contribution to the Madeleine McCann Affair. But not at all the one he wanted.

This sounds like very good news for Mr Amaral.
But I don't think it is - it's not nearly so simple as 'Blacksmith' claims.

If you look at Dr Amaral's case against Marcos Aragao Correia, there's no doubt that he made numerous libellous remarks against Amaral. Plus did al sorts of unpredictable, strange things:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5559-part-of-the-defamation-case-brought-by-dr-goncalo-amaral-that-he-lost

I think the judge in the Amaral v Correia case rather bent the law with some ingenious interpretations of libel law, so as to get Correia off the hook.

Corriea, despite his strangeness, his instability, his blatant lying etc. etc. seems to be rather too well connected

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14899
Reputation : 2991
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thanks Marcos by Blacksmith Bureau

Post by Guest on 04.09.12 16:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:And the same goes for Goncalo Amaral – even if the PJ inspectors’ report of 2007 which set out the claims circulated by Amaral was a pack of lies from start to finish then as long as Amaral genuinely believed them he cannot be guilty of libel. So in the long run Aragão Correia may finally have got his way and made a historic contribution to the Madeleine McCann Affair. But not at all the one he wanted.

This sounds like very good news for Mr Amaral.
But I don't think it is - it's not nearly so simple as 'Blacksmith' claims.

If you look at Dr Amaral's case against Marcos Aragao Correia, there's no doubt that he made numerous libellous remarks against Amaral. Plus did al sorts of unpredictable, strange things:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5559-part-of-the-defamation-case-brought-by-dr-goncalo-amaral-that-he-lost

I think the judge in the Amaral v Correia case rather bent the law with some ingenious interpretations of libel law, so as to get Correia off the hook.

Corriea, despite his strangeness, his instability, his blatant lying etc. etc. seems to be rather too well connected



Yes, but when a ruling is made doesn't it set a precedent whereby lawyers can refer to that case and say in the case of Smith v Jones etc., and bring these up. So surely he has set a benchmark whereby other defendants lawyers can quote the judge, saying if Mr Amaral believed it to be true then he was not guilty of libel? It works on Law and Order
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum