Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

haroldd2 wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:I've copied and pasted this from the other recent libel thread and hope that haroldd2 will join us:

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
  ultimaThule Today at 10:19 pm

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: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8887-libel-trial-7th-jan-postponed-confirmed 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.

Hi Ultima and thanks for this. I hope I'm now in the right thread! I wasn't aware of Anne Guedes's (occasionally periphrastic) write-ups, so thanks too for referring me to these.

The reason I think a libel victory for GA will open the floodgates for civil actions against the McCanns in the English jurisdiction is that it will have been established – if he wins – that it's not libellous in Portugal to say that the abduction was faked. The oft-heard line that it can't be libellous to express an opinion is not true. If you write that it's your opinion that someone of good character has committed a crime, then that can certainly be libellous. Ask George Monbiot or Sally Bercow. If the McCanns lose the libel case, it means, if we trace it through, that a judge decided it's reasonable to think there's a good chance they might have faked the abduction. If they did, then all their requests for money will have been both tortious and criminal. GA will not have proved anything (OK I am translating from English law here), but I would have thought a civil claimant in England could find a way to quote the Portuguese result and get it given some weight in court. They could even call Amaral as a witness - not of what happened in the Portuguese court, but of what he found during his investigation and what conclusions he drew from it.  There's no ban on hearsay evidence in an English civil court. And they only beat the DNA test by the skin of their teeth. That might in itself get them off on a criminal charge, but would they have enough to win a civil case? 

And it wouldn't cost much! If someone has donated say £10, they could sue in the small claims court. They could be a person who has never published anything critical of the McCanns and who is not at risk of being countersued and risking a large financial loss.

By asking whether there might have been diplomatic intervention, I mean might there have been intervention from British diplomats or consular officials which led the judge not to set a date for reconvening the court. I ask because I don't know how common it is in Portugal for a judge in this kind of trial to order an adjournment that's open-ended, and because British officials are known to have been involved in getting GA removed from the case. One of the reasons I've become interested in matters McCann is because there seems to have been big influence wielded in support of them – so big that it can't be explained by a few million pounds in the fund or even the support of characters such as Kennedy and Smethurst.

On the matter of legal arguments, I'm not sure whether meetings with counsel in the judge's chambers would have to be mentioned in the courtroom.

Last question - have all the people in Team McCann in the courtroom been identified? I'm just going by the mugshots and generic silhouettes here. Somebody is definitely going to be reporting from the courtroom back to Britgov. Angus McBride's background looks interesting, even if he does sound a bit like someone who taps his nose in the pub and says he works for the government but can't say in what capacity. I mean how can someone "specialise" in "all aspects of criminal defence"? They can't. But maybe once we've stopped laughing... His involvement with the Edmund Lawson/Michael Peat cover-up inquiry for the royal family might warrant a closer look.

Hi Harold, a good post. Just one thing: diplomats can not interfere in court cases. They can visit prisoners, they can provide them with material that maybe will help them find their way in the court system, they can provide names of lawyers, but they cannot interfere in a court case or a police investigation. It happened here in 2007, one of the reasons why there is this mess.

I'm pleased to see you've joined this thread, haroldd2.  I've been reading your posts on another thread with interest and hope to respond to some of the points you've made sometime over the weekend.

Working backwards through your questions: as far as I'm aware, all of TM's 'people' who have attended libel trial in Lisbon in whatever capacity have been identified.  From her reports, it appears it's often been the case that Anne Guedes has been the only spectator in the public box.  However, I have no doubt that each day's proceedings have been reported to 'others', shall we say.   

Press reports indicate that K&G retained the services of Kingsley Napley cSeptember 2007 after their return from Portugal and Angus McBride, self professed 'specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media', gave evidence for his clients on the second day of the trial.  It would seem he also attended the court in Lisbon with Mrs McCann on the very few days that she chose to watch the proceedings.  

Ftr, Kingsley Napley are the instructing solicitors for Charlie and Rebekah Brooks in the ongoing hacking trial and McBride is the lead solicitor in this matter.

Fwiw, I'm somewhat bemused by McBride's description of himself as 'a specialist in the criminal defence of victims' as it would seem that, in his estimation, criminal courts are places where prosecutors prosecute on behalf of victims while the defence defends them, which begs the question of who is bringing the perpetrators to account?     Speculating as to who came up with the phrase first - McBride or McCann - gives rise to a chicken and egg situation in which it seems likely a pink cockatoo may have played a part in the evolutionary process.  The phrase 'birds of a feather' comes to mind.   
.
If legal arguments have been heard in chambers it's probable the judge or one of the parties would have made reference in open court to whatever had been determined in private.  However, the trial, which was due to resume on 7th January of this year, was 'postponed' at the request of counsel for the McCanns prior to this date, albeit at a time when counsel for Dr Amaral was present, and it may be there have been 'sidebars' which have not been made public.

It's not known why Izzy made this request but if, for example, one of the parties in a trial was too ill to attend it wouldn't be unusual for the court to adjourn to a date to be set upon their recovery with the expectation that regular medically certified updates as to their progress would be submitted to the judge.  

In the western world the autonomy of the judiciary is sacrosanct and, as lj has said, governments and/or their various departments/agents/agencies have no right or power to influence court proceedings or outcomes.  As the written word can easily be misconstrued, to say any more would take me into waters I have no wish to swim in on this forum.

For ease of reading, I will adjourn   this response and resume in another as your observations in respect of the McCanns' being inundated with 'give us our money back' requests have given rise to what will be another long response from me.

In case you're not aware, Anne Guedes's transcripts of the libel trial can be found on the ukjustice forum site and, as of late last night, she has given no indication of whether or not the trial is due to resume next Tuesday as has been rumoured.

Some thoughts on the Wardship and the libel trial:

It appears the trial may resume next week at which time we may discover why the hearing of closing arguments which was scheduled to take place on 7 January was 'postponed' at the request of Isabel Duarte, counsel for the McCanns. 

The need for such a long delay at this stage is puzzling and, while I'm inclined to dismiss rumours that the McCanns are again seeking to settle out of court, I've been giving some thought to what implications, if any, the fact that Madeleine is a Ward of Court may have on the proceedings. 

As I understand it, the McCanns are seeking damages in the sum of 1,250,000 euros in respect of themselves and their 3 children namely, Madeleine, Sean, and Amelie. 

However, by virtue of the fact that according to the law of England/Wales Madeleine Beth McCann is a Ward of Court with parental responsibility for the child being vested in the Court, it would appear her parents have no lawful right to issue legal proceedings, or make any claim for damages or other monetary compensation, on her behalf without having first obtained leave from the Court to do so and, IMO, this would hold true regardless of whether the McCanns sought to institute legal proceedings of this nature in the UK or in any other country in or out of the EU. 

If the court in Lisbon should hold that the McCanns' claim for damages on behalf of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann is unlawful or invalid, I very much doubt that the remedy will be to strike a red pencil through her name and reduce the amount claimed by 250,000euros, or whatever sum the McCanns have claimed on her behalf, and it seems to me more probable that the Plaintiffs' claim would be dismissed with costs being awarded to the Defence. 

As stated, the above are merely 'thoughts' and should not be read as considered opinion. In addition, the McCanns give every impression of having expensive lawyers for all eventualities on speed dial and it would seem to me to be unlikely they would have been advised to proceed with this case without the issue of Wardship having been addressed. 

Nevertheless, given the paucity of evidence so far produced to substantiate their claim it would also seem unlikely that Isabel Duarte, reputed to be one of Portugal's top lawyers (presumably in cases of defamation), had opportunity to examine the McCanns' UK and Canada based witnesses prior to their taking the stand and I am wondering whether the matter of Wardship was lost in translation, so to speak.  

I hope Tony will bring his experience of libel proceedings to bear on this thread and look forward to reading his comments on possible outcomes based on the above which is little more than speculation on my part.

This WOC issue could have serious implications against the McCanns.

Putting someone's name down in a libel prosecution without permission to do so could well be a criminal offence. 

In addition, the defendants have had to ring fence a substantial amount of money in case Madeleine won her case against them.

Since they cannot sue Madeleine for this loss of liquidity, the defendants must be able to sue the McCanns instead.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, I would imagine that this would come to a large sum being awarded to the defendants.

statsman wrote:This WOC issue could have serious implications against the McCanns.

Putting someone's name down in a libel prosecution without permission to do so could well be a criminal offence. 

In addition, the defendants have had to ring fence a substantial amount of money in case Madeleine won her case against them.

Since they cannot sue Madeleine for this loss of liquidity, the defendants must be able to sue the McCanns instead.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, I would imagine that this would come to a large sum being awarded to the defendants.

I'm confused here, so perhaps Tony can help.
I've always found it sort of in reverse sense, that 'costs are awarded to' usually means that the 'costs of the case are charged to the whoever' so the word 'award' does not mean a 'gift' but a 'price to pay'.

I cannot see the justice in the McCs causing expenses to be made by Gonçalo Amaral (the defendent) to defend himself against the McCs (the plaintiffs) threats, yet as a defender, if the McCs lose their case, it should be 'costs awarded/ foisted upon' Gonçalo.

Is it just legal 'terminology' which we need to clarify here, in the above two posts about the wording 'costs are awarded to'.

Who has to pay whom when costs are 'awarded'.

Can anyone with the 'legal terminology' knowledge please inform me of who has to pay what to whom.

Thank you. I couldn't bear to see Gonçalo having to pay all of the lawyer and court expenses incurred by the McCs in the event that they lose the vexatious case that they have brought against this honourable man.

Was the WOC issue not raised during the book trial and Madeleine's name removed from the list of people joined in the proceedings ?  I'm sure it was but cannot look for a link because I'm going to work.

I am confused about the WOC issue and whether this is the reason the trial has been on hold for so long.

I distinctly remember reading at least 18 months ago (or maybe longer) that Mr. & Mrs. had had to remove Maddie's name from the proceedings before they could go ahead.

ETA - Snap Sami

bobbin wrote:

I'm confused here, so perhaps Tony can help.
I've always found it sort of in reverse sense, that 'costs are awarded to' usually means that the 'costs of the case are charged to the whoever' so the word 'award' does not mean a 'gift' but a 'price to pay'.

I cannot see the justice in the McCs causing expenses to be made by Gonçalo Amaral (the defendent) to defend himself against the McCs (the plaintiffs) threats, yet as a defender, if the McCs lose their case, it should be 'costs awarded/ foisted upon' Gonçalo.

Is it just legal 'terminology' which we need to clarify here, in the above two posts about the wording 'costs are awarded to'.

Who has to pay whom when costs are 'awarded'.

Can anyone with the 'legal terminology' knowledge please inform me of who has to pay what to whom.

Thank you. I couldn't bear to see Gonçalo having to pay all of the lawyer and court expenses incurred by the McCs in the event that they lose the vexatious case that they have brought against this honourable man.

Having no experience whatsoever in libel proceedings, I'm only going to offer an opinion based on logic. I would have thought that whoever loses would be liable to pay for both their own costs and that of their opponents. There may also be court costs involved on top of this.

Were the McCanns to lose this case, there may be a possibility that it would open the door for Mr. Goncala to instigate counter claims against them. As previously stated, this really is a simplistic opinion based on logic and I expect to be corrected with a capital C.  

I have a recollection that Joana Morais explained this some time ago, I'll try to find it.

diatribe wrote:

bobbin wrote:

I'm confused here, so perhaps Tony can help.
I've always found it sort of in reverse sense, that 'costs are awarded to' usually means that the 'costs of the case are charged to the whoever' so the word 'award' does not mean a 'gift' but a 'price to pay'.

I cannot see the justice in the McCs causing expenses to be made by Gonçalo Amaral (the defendent) to defend himself against the McCs (the plaintiffs) threats, yet as a defender, if the McCs lose their case, it should be 'costs awarded/ foisted upon' Gonçalo.

Is it just legal 'terminology' which we need to clarify here, in the above two posts about the wording 'costs are awarded to'.

Who has to pay whom when costs are 'awarded'.

Can anyone with the 'legal terminology' knowledge please inform me of who has to pay what to whom.

Thank you. I couldn't bear to see Gonçalo having to pay all of the lawyer and court expenses incurred by the McCs in the event that they lose the vexatious case that they have brought against this honourable man.

Having no experience whatsoever in libel proceedings, I'm only going to offer an opinion based on logic. I would have thought that whoever loses would be liable to pay for both their own costs and that of their opponents. There may also be court costs involved on top of this.

Were the McCanns to lose this case, there may be a possibility that it would open the door for Mr. Goncala to instigate counter claims against them. As previously stated, this really is a simplistic opinion based on logic and I expect to be corrected with a capital C.  

If I am not wrong, the losing party will have to borne the full cost of Court costs.
If team Amaral wins they can apply for their legal costs to be reimbursed by team Mccanns, but this has to be applied for (not an automatic award against losing party by Court), and subject to appreciation by the Court.
I should like to think that team Amaral would have the wisdom to have this application already ready and on stand by for submission as soon as the verdict is pronounced; and I don't see the Judge refusing it since the Mccanns proved rather vicious when they have Amaral's asset frozen.

I would hate for the case to be won on technical ground of WOC.

from joana Morais

Please note that the ruling determines that costs are to be paid by the appealed parties, which is to say, the McCann couple and their children. These costs relate exclusively to the injunction and the appeal, and they do not cover lawyer expenses, or any other court costs that have already been paid beforehand. A recent legal reform in Portugal has determined that the vast majority of court expenses have to be paid in advance - as was the case at hand.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

PeterMac wrote:from joana Morais

Please note that the ruling determines that costs are to be paid by the appealed parties, which is to say, the McCann couple and their children. These costs relate exclusively to the injunction and the appeal, and they do not cover lawyer expenses, or any other court costs that have already been paid beforehand. A recent legal reform in Portugal has determined that the vast majority of court expenses have to be paid in advance - as was the case at hand.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

Bankruptcy then PM?

It's hard to see how this case can continue. SY have publicly stated that their two strongest leads are a serial sex offender who may have killed her in the flat; and the 3 burglars who may have killed her in the flat when she discovered them. In both cases, poor Maddie is not alive - which is exactly what Amaral said in his book. That part no longer seems up for debate and "harming the search" appears now to be a fruitless line of attack. Does writing that he suspected the parents constitute libel? They were 'arguidos' after all, so it was hardly new news that they were suspected!

For the McCanns to win the case it probably had to finish before SY went public. Whether the WOC isse ends it, or whether the McCanns quietly withdraw - it seems just a formality now (although I guess with high profile court cases you never can tell...).

Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.

Bishop Brennan wrote:It's hard to see how this case can continue.  SY have publicly stated that their two strongest leads are a serial sex offender who may have killed her in the flat; and the 3 burglars who may have killed her in the flat when she discovered them.  In both cases, poor Maddie is not alive - which is exactly what Amaral said in his book.  That part no longer seems up for debate and "harming the search" appears now to be a fruitless line of attack.  Does writing that he suspected the parents constitute libel? They were 'arguidos' after all, so it was hardly new news that they were suspected!    

For the McCanns to win the case it probably had to finish before SY went public. Whether the WOC isse ends it, or whether the McCanns quietly withdraw - it seems just a formality now (although I guess with high profile court cases you never can tell...).    

  Have bolded this from your post, BB, because I have not heard anyone from SY talk about these being strong leads, just an appeal for info. Isn't it the media putting words into AR's mouth ?

Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.

From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors. 

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it. 

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

ultimaThule wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.

From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors. 

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it. 

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

Hello UT

To a certain extent I agree with you.

It has always surprised me that the four defendants allowed the proceedings to commence at all on behalf of Madeleine Beth McCann, who is not a party to the proceedings herself, nor is she legally represented in the court. She simply is not there, so she cannot ask for compensation, damages etc etc.

The parents can represent the twins; no problem there.

But the odd thing is, the above appears not to have hindered the proceedings from commencing at all, whereas normally they should only have commenced after these issues were cleared up in the highest instance (maybe even the Portuguese Supreme Court)

Why has it not come up?

Maybe now, just now, at five to twelve so to speak, the PJ found evidenced of the childs demise, which was used by the four defendants to stay the proceedings even now at the very last minute.

Time will tell.

It dawned upon me today, that no one in this tragedy will ever be free from its consequences, and neither will we, the untold concerned onlookers

It is not a case anyone will be able to forget

And bear in mind, that the release of the finale reports of AR/SY and the PJ, the final decisions in the libel trial, and the possible criminal litigation are yet to come

russiandoll wrote:
  Have bolded this from your post, BB, because I have not heard anyone from SY talk about these being strong leads, just an appeal for info. Isn't it the media putting words into AR's mouth ?

Good point russiandoll, I did somewhat overstate that. I guess we could say that with BHH backing the '3 burglars' story on radio and claiming to 'have names' that this is probably one of their main leads. But 'smellyman' does seem to be a theory at this stage with information being sought. Not that you'd think that from the media furore that it has created! So yes - strong leads would be the press view rather than reality. I must be reading too much of it!

In terms of the libel trial, the "may not have been alive" quote from AR came out on the back of smellyman - although may well have been in response to Amaral's claim on TV that SY now believe she is dead. Both statements were unchallenged and surely can only weaken the libel claim. Although as others have said here, it may well founder on legal issues around the WOC and stay in limbo for ever.

Portia wrote:
It dawned upon me today, that no one in this tragedy will ever be free from its consequences, and neither will we, the untold concerned onlookers
It is not a case anyone will be able to forget
And bear in mind, that the release of the finale reports of AR/SY and the PJ, the final decisions in the libel trial, and the possible criminal litigation are yet to come

Exactly.
The McCanns have it within their power to stop the whole ghastly thing, by telling the truth, whatever that is.
And just ONE version please ! (And that version must be credible, and ideally be supported by some evidence )
The Tapas7 have the same power
But failing that, this will become as long running as Hilsborough, or any of the cases TB is involved with.
Until the truth be known, or until justice is done this is not going to go away.

And the McCanns had better understand that.
A real tragedy is what this is gong to do to their remaining children.

Well it's all go in BHH's office. I wonder how he finds the time to run a police service.

Truth over corruption files police shredded: Secret memo said officers trafficked drugs, faked evidence and took bribes

• [size=18.2]Memo says shredded files had details of crimes by Met police officers
  [/size]
  
• [size=18.2]The 'lorry load' of destroyed information relates to a corruption probe[/size]
  
• [size=18.2]The information could have shed light on Stephen Lawrence's murder[/size]
  
• [size=18.2]Met commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe will face MPs to explain shredding[/size]
  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587531/Truth-corruption-files-police-shredded-Secret-memo-officers-trafficked-drugs-faked-evidence-took-bribes.html#ixzz2wrdW4dyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

When we last saw GA which I think was around New Year, he looked shocking. He had lost so much weight, he was drawn and literally looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. In this recent interview he gave he looked like all his worries had been removed, he had gained weight and looked healthy. 
Iirc Philomena i think it was, during her witness evidence said the book left no other theory except that MM had died and therefore he had harmed the search for her as people would stop looking for her, yet last week he spoke openly of his belief that MM died on 3/5/2007. Would he do that in the middle of a trial that is suing him for exactly that? That alone makes me feel this libel trial is over. Whether it is due to the Mccanns withdrawing or it being ended on some legality I do not know but I do believe any person only has so much emotional strength to keep fighting libel trials. 
As for how these trials effect the twins emotionally, even if not now but when they are older and looking back, then I would have thought that they'd had enough to deal with regarding their sister going missing and living day to day with that and the private and the police investigations going on around them, without the extra stresses and strains the libel trials put on their parents lives and indeed everyone else's around them which in turn affects their lives no matter how much anybody says that they're being protected from it.
Just my opinion of course.

Clocker wrote:When we last saw GA which I think was around New Year, he looked shocking. He had lost so much weight, he was drawn and literally looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. In this recent interview he gave he looked like all the weight had been removed, he had gained weight and looked healthy. 
Iirc Philomena i think it was, during her witness evidence said the book left no other theory except that MM had died and therefore he had harmed the search for her as people would stop looking for her, yet last week he spoke openly of his belief that MM died on 3/5/2007. Would he do that in the middle of a trial that is suing him for exactly that? That alone makes me feel this libel trial is over. Whether it is due to the Mccanns withdrawing or it being ended on some legality I do not know but I do believe any person only has so much emotional strength to keep fighting libel trials. 
As for how these trials effect the twins emotionally, even if not now but when they are older and looking back, then I would have thought that they'd had enough to deal with regarding their sister going missing and living day to day with that and the private and the police investigations going on around them, without the extra stresses and strains the libel trials put on their parents lives and indeed everyone else's around them which in turn affects their lives no matter how much anybody says that they're being protected from it.
Just my opinion of course.

Good point.   I would have thought it was illegal to do so.

The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Cristobell wrote:The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Can you please give examples of those high profile claimants you've looked at who have been ruined by losing libel trials, Cristobell? 

Fwiw, and for the benefit of those may find themselves on the brink of financial meltdown for want of a better term, bankruptcy does not automatically lead to the loss of career/employment or loss of reputation other than with lenders/creditors.

With regard to the two police investigations, as far as I'm aware the PJ are yet to indicate whether their current investigation points to the child being dead, nor has there been any such confirmation from NSY.

As the McCanns have claimed that people wouldn't search for a dead Madeleine, you may wish to edit your post by substituting 'dead' for 'alive'.

ultimaThule wrote:

Cristobell wrote:The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Can you please give examples of those high profile claimants you've looked at who have been ruined by losing libel trials, Cristobell? 

Fwiw, and for the benefit of those may find themselves on the brink of financial meltdown for want of a better term, bankruptcy does not automatically lead to the loss of career/employment or loss of reputation other than with lenders/creditors.

With regard to the two police investigations, as far as I'm aware the PJ are yet to indicate whether their current investigation points to the child being dead, nor has there been any such confirmation from NSY.

As the McCanns have claimed that people wouldn't search for a dead Madeleine, you may wish to edit your post by substituting 'dead' for 'alive'.

Albeit my wording may have been clumsy, but live, is what I meant.  The McCann Campaign is to convince people Madeleine is alive, it keeps the Fund going.

Herewith a link to David Irving's ruination.  

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/irving

Herewith link to Jonathan Aitkin's ruination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Libel_action

I was not suggesting bankruptcy leads to loss of career etc, I was clearly discussing ill conceived libel actions not bankruptcy in general.  In the two cases I have cited, the claimants were exposed as liars and despicable people, and indeed Jonathan Aitkin went on to receive a prison sentence.

Going slightly off topic, I am confused as to your use of the word 'plaint'.  It's many years since I worked as a legal secretary, but it is not a word I am familiar with.  In a High Court action, a Writ is issued which incorporates a Statement of Claim, that is a list of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff (it used to be Plaintiff .v. Defendant, though it may now have changed to Claimant .v. Defendant, maybe someone can clarify?).