Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by Casey5 06.01.14 19:13

I read on another forum that the plaintiffs and defenders will all be liable to pay their own costs, legal fees etc. but the winner/s can petition the courts for damages and a judge has the final say on this.
So Mr Amaral and his co-defenders, if they win, will have to petition the court for any payments from the McCanns, which will accrue even more legal fees for both sides.
It seems in Portugal, like here, only the lawyers win.

by ultimaThule 06.01.14 19:21

Can you provide a link to that forum please, Casey?

by Casey5 06.01.14 19:29

ultimaThule wrote:Can you provide a link to that forum please, Casey?

I could but it's a closed forum so you wouldn't be able to access it if you're not a member. I'll p.m you.

by ultimaThule 06.01.14 19:39

In that case, could you please reproduce here any posts you've read which suggest that winners must pay their own costs and petition for damages in, presumably, a separate hearing?

by SomethingStinks 06.01.14 20:23

Hi!
At what time will the hearing take place tomorrow? thinking

by aiyoyo 06.01.14 20:26

Dunno exactly!
Normal office starting hours I'd presume, maybe about 9.00 clockish I'd say.

by ultimaThule 06.01.14 20:38

Assembly at 9.30am seems to be the order of the day but the proceedings rarely get underway until c10am.

I assume Izzy will complete her arguments in the morning session but as there are 4 lawyers for the defence it remains to be seen whether it will be necessary for the trial to run into another day.

As there'll be no need for interpreter services the proceedings should move on at a quicker pace than was set in the first few days and it's be hoped all of the closing arguments will be heard in full tomorrow, after which it will be a case of waiting for judgement to be handed down at some future date.

by aiyoyo 06.01.14 21:01

ultimaThule wrote:Assembly at 9.30am seems to be the order of the day but the proceedings rarely get underway until c10am.

I assume Izzy will complete her arguments in the morning session but as there are 4 lawyers for the defence it remains to be seen whether it will be necessary for the trial to run into another day.

As there'll be no need for interpreter services the proceedings should move on at a quicker pace than was set in the first few days and it's be hoped all of the closing arguments will be heard in full tomorrow, after which it will be a case of waiting for judgement to be handed down at some future date.

I suppose if ID doesn't take up the whole morning, and provided lunch break is kept short, then maybe every side can have their argument done with within the day.
Possibly not all the four lawyers from defendants side will give long summary.
Main one will come from Amaral's lawyer.
The defendants are taken collectively and not individually, as such a verdict against Mccanns is effectively one in favour of all the defendants collectively.
I, too, believe tomorrow is a full day given to closing arguments , and a verdict will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

The Mccanns as we know won't be there tomorrow. But is their presence obligatory on Verdict Day ?

by sallypelt 06.01.14 23:16

I don't know if it is official, but it's being stated that libel trial has been postponed

Edited to say there's nothing official

by Tangled Web 06.01.14 23:40

sallypelt wrote:I don't know if it is official, but it's being stated that libel trial has been postponed

Edited to say there's nothing official

I've seen this too and posted in 'News' as I hadn't seen it here, sorry. Looks like more waiting!

by ultimaThule 07.01.14 0:22

Portugal has declared 3 days of national mourning for their hero, Eusebio.

I daresay the date of tomorrow's postponed hearing will be made available in due course.

In the meantime, it's winter and it's to be hoped the season of colds and flu doesn't leave any of the 5 sets of lawyers, 4 defendants, court officials, and, of course, the judge, indisposed which may cause a further delay.

by SomethingStinks 07.01.14 3:11

@postponed:
Nevertheless thanks a lot for answering my question!

by plebgate 07.01.14 8:58

Portia wrote:And also: if someone else is picking up the tabs, wouldn't this be income for the Mecs, and wouldn't they, as a consequence, be taxed in person?

Now there's a thought. smilie

by Guest 07.01.14 10:09

plebgate wrote:
Portia wrote:And also: if someone else is picking up the tabs, wouldn't this be income for the Mecs, and wouldn't they, as a consequence, be taxed in person?
Now there's a thought.

Maybe Enid could be persuaded to shed some light on this, if she's still around?

by Tangled Web 07.01.14 10:42

It appears GA's lawyers submitted extra documents at the last minute.

Tweet from Jerry Lawton
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by tiny 07.01.14 10:56

Tangled Web wrote:It appears GA's lawyers submitted extra documents at the last minute.

Tweet from Jerry Lawton
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wonder when this last minute was

by Guest 07.01.14 10:57

Tangled Web wrote:It appears GA's lawyers submitted extra documents at the last minute.

Tweet from Jerry Lawton
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 39m
#mccann libel trial adjourned to date to be fixed after Goncalo Amaral's lawyers submitted more documents at last minute

by Tangled Web 07.01.14 11:08

Thanks Candyfloss...I'm a bit of a technophobe!

by **PeterMac** 07.01.14 14:47

[quote="candyfloss"]

Tangled Web wrote:It appears GA's lawyers submitted extra documents at the last minute.
Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 39m
#mccann libel trial adjourned to date to be fixed after Goncalo Amaral's lawyers submitted more documents at last minute

He has been sent a lot of important ones over the last few weeks.
Or so I have been told ! big grin

by tiny 07.01.14 14:49

PeterMac wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:It appears GA's lawyers submitted extra documents at the last minute.
Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 39m
#mccann libel trial adjourned to date to be fixed after Goncalo Amaral's lawyers submitted more documents at last minute
He has been sent a lot of important ones over the last few weeks.
Or so I have been told !

Who ever sent them, clapping

by Tangled Web 07.01.14 15:06

Châtelaine wrote:@ ultimaThule

""any 'lid' is well and truly off and IMO the 'shelling out' of 'all this money' has one purpose which is to bring the perpertrators of a heinous crime against a 3 year old child to justice."
****
Amen to that, UT

I agree. If the plan was a whitewash then this could've been achieved much more quietly. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I like Andy Redwood. I've been watching interviews with him from when they announced the 'review' and a few times, he slipped up and said 'this investigation' and then corrected himself to say 'this investigation REVIEW'. I think it's always been an investigation but they aren't going to let the prime suspects know what they're really up to are they?

by bobbin 07.01.14 15:26

Tangled Web wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:@ ultimaThule

""any 'lid' is well and truly off and IMO the 'shelling out' of 'all this money' has one purpose which is to bring the perpertrators of a heinous crime against a 3 year old child to justice."
****
Amen to that, UT

I agree. If the plan was a whitewash then this could've been achieved much more quietly. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I like Andy Redwood. I've been watching interviews with him from when they announced the 'review' and a few times, he slipped up and said 'this investigation' and then corrected himself to say 'this investigation REVIEW'. I think it's always been an investigation but they aren't going to let the prime suspects know what they're really up to are they?

I'll fight you for him Mrs

No, seriously, I think he is fast becoming one rare, cool dude.
A whitewash, like so many before, could have gone away quietly ages ago, and even leaving the public 'knowing' that it's a whitewash.
There have been many examples lately, where inquiries have come up with the most blatant and truth defying dismissals...Kelly, etc. etc.
When Andy Redwood says, to discover what actually happened to Madeleine McCann, I hear and see a genuine truth in his manner.
I will be most sincerely shocked if I have got him wrongly assessed.
I do not think he is anyone's fool, and I do not think he will suborn his core beliefs to a higher pressure.

by Tangled Web 07.01.14 16:41

bobbin wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:@ ultimaThule

""any 'lid' is well and truly off and IMO the 'shelling out' of 'all this money' has one purpose which is to bring the perpertrators of a heinous crime against a 3 year old child to justice."
****
Amen to that, UT

I agree. If the plan was a whitewash then this could've been achieved much more quietly. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I like Andy Redwood. I've been watching interviews with him from when they announced the 'review' and a few times, he slipped up and said 'this investigation' and then corrected himself to say 'this investigation REVIEW'. I think it's always been an investigation but they aren't going to let the prime suspects know what they're really up to are they?

I'll fight you for him
No, seriously, I think he is fast becoming one rare, cool dude.
A whitewash, like so many before, could have gone away quietly ages ago, and even leaving the public 'knowing' that it's a whitewash.
There have been many examples lately, where inquiries have come up with the most blatant and truth defying dismissals...Kelly, etc. etc.
When Andy Redwood says, to discover what actually happened to Madeleine McCann, I hear and see a genuine truth in his manner.
I will be most sincerely shocked if I have got him wrongly assessed.

I do not think he is anyone's fool, and I do not think he will suborn his core beliefs to a higher pressure.

Let us hope he doesn't let us down then Bobbin or you're welcome to him winkwink

by ultimaThule 08.01.14 11:50

ultimaThule wrote:Also reported here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:10 pm
Sincere apologies UT. I have done it again, reproduced something that has been posted already [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Please delete anything I post, it takes me ages to c/p and I get a bit behind !!

I fear posting - all done with good intent - and I do a search beforehand but still mess up [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I shall withdraw with dignity and just keep reading/researching, my opinions and questions I shall keep to myself !
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Having just begun to re-read this truncated thread from page 1 it seems I overlooked your above post, daffodil, and wish to assure you that, in adding a link to another thread on the same subject, I meant no criticism whatosever of you - if anyone should apologise it's me for not having made this clear at the time.

I'm immensely relieved you haven't withdrawn because of my frustration when there are a number of threads on the same subject - not, I hasten to add, that this is any complaint about the way in which this forum is maintained as the diversity of the topics and threads therein is what, for me, sets it apart from other sites dedicated to the case of Madeleine McCann.

Please accept my belated apology for any upset or embarrassment I may unwittingly have caused you and please don't stop adding your valuable input to this forum.

by haroldd2 19.02.14 20:45

Has the libel trial been adjourned until a given date? If so, until when? If not, is it usual in Portuguese civil trials not to give an adjournment date?

Was a reason given for adjourning?

I take the view that if the McCanns lose the libel case they'll be wide open to people suing them in the English civil courts (and indeed in other countries) for misleading them into donating money. A loss to GA will not necessarily give grounds for a criminal prosecution for fraud, but it will for a civil action for tort.

Might there have been some diplomatic intervention?

Presumably if the case is being tried by a judge rather than a jury, then there's no reason for any legal arguments to be in secret - unless someone, who may not necessarily be either of the parties in the case, has made a good case to the contrary.

by ultimaThule 19.02.14 22:19

haroldd2 wrote:Has the libel trial been adjourned until a given date? If so, until when? If not, is it usual in Portuguese civil trials not to give an adjournment date?

Was a reason given for adjourning?

I take the view that if the McCanns lose the libel case they'll be wide open to people suing them in the English civil courts (and indeed in other countries) for misleading them into donating money. A loss to GA will not necessarily give grounds for a criminal prosecution for fraud, but it will for a civil action for tort.

Might there have been some diplomatic intervention?

Presumably if the case is being tried by a judge rather than a jury, then there's no reason for any legal arguments to be in secret - unless someone, who may not necessarily be either of the parties in the case, has made a good case to the contrary.

We seem to have adjourned to this thread, harold: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and if you check out p.22 there's a brief history of the trial to dat.

I can't see how losing will open any floodgates for claims against the McCanns either in the UK or elsewhere because Dr Amaral's book merely posits a theory and if he and his co-defendants win the case it can't be seen as evidence, or proof positive, that Madeleine is dead.

The proceedings have been heard in open court because the McCanns refused the defendants' offer for the case to be heard in private and, from what can be ascertained from the transcripts of the proceedings produced by Anne Guedes who has attended throughout, there have been no closed sessions for the purpose of hearing legal arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Might there have been some diplomatic intervention'? 'Intervention' in what?

After posting here, I'll copy this to the other thread and if you respond there it will avoid any confusion caused by 2 threads on the same subject running concurrently.