LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

ultimaThule wrote: As I understand it, it's also commonplace for criminal proceedings to be much delayed with some defendants languishing in jail for c2-3 years before their cases come to trial in Portugal

Given the complexity of the McCann case, I suspect the length of time which expires between arrest and trial will set a new record and maybe it would take as much as 4-5 years before those apprehended appear in court. 

***
Oh, you naughty one!

How would the statute of limitations interfere with that?

lj wrote:How would the statute of limitations interfere with that?

Not

Litigation is proceeding, so there is no statute of limitation

canada12 wrote:One could be forgiven for thinking a certain amount of stalling and delaying was taking place with this trial, perhaps waiting for further "developments" in the overall case. On the other hand, apparently this stopping and starting over a period of time is quite common with trials of this sort in Portugal.

I await January.

It honestly is quite a protracted trial which isn't unusual in Portugal.
But in this instance I believe it is not easy to get those involved to commit to a schedule in Dec due to the festive season and closure for festive holiday.
Hopefully closing statements can be completed when it resumes on 7 Jan without hiccup, and then it's just the verdict few weeks later.

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

Sincere apologies UT.   I have done it again, reproduced something that has been posted already     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     
I shall withdraw with dignity and just keep reading/researching, my opinions and questions I shall keep to myself !

daffodil wrote:Sincere apologies UT.   I have done it again, reproduced something that has been posted already     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     
I shall withdraw with dignity and just keep reading/researching, my opinions and questions I shall keep to myself !

Don't do that daffodil you are very much appreciated and have brought us lots of news. Keep posting, don't be put off, we all post up things we hadn't seen before, it doesn't matter.

You are extremely kind Cf, your comments are much appreciated.

I know I am new to this forum, but not to the case itself as I have been following it for a few years now.

There are such articulate and almost 'professionally' well-informed posters here that I frequently feel out of my depth, nevertheless I always follow closely and come here for the most current opinions and information.

I am here, supportive and mostly silent, until the end.   For some unknown reason the thing I dread most is the finding of Madeleine's body.

Please could someone explain to me; how is it possible to reach a verdict, when everybody (presumably the judge included) knows that the plaintiffs are very likely still being investigated, in addition to being partially (or wholly) culpable in bringing the consequences upon themselves?

I just can't get my head around that?

Mikey wrote:Please could someone explain to me; how is it possible to reach a verdict, when everybody (presumably the judge included) knows that the plaintiffs are very likely still being investigated, in addition to being partially (or wholly) culpable in bringing the consequences upon themselves?

I just can't get my head around that?

Because none of that matters, the thing at stake is whether or not the book was libelous and harmed the search for Madeleine?
All IMO of course.

But therein lies another rub... because surely there is also the high probability that she is already dead, equally possibly dead from the start, and of course that the McCanns knew this!?

IMO it's all about...

Ayniia wrote:

Mikey wrote:Please could someone explain to me; how is it possible to reach a verdict, when everybody (presumably the judge included) knows that the plaintiffs are very likely still being investigated, in addition to being partially (or wholly) culpable in bringing the consequences upon themselves?

I just can't get my head around that?

Because none of that matters, the thing at stake is whether or not the book was libelous and harmed the search for Madeleine?
All IMO of course.

From the judgement of the appelate court upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal it appears that Dr Amaral's book has been found not to be libellous:

"The book "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie" which was written by the defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and profession honour..."

"The contents of the book does not offend any of the fundamental rights of the the applicants" (the McCanns)

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are assured to everyone by the European Convention for Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution..."

Ayniia wrote:

Mikey wrote:Please could someone explain to me; how is it possible to reach a verdict, when everybody (presumably the judge included) knows that the plaintiffs are very likely still being investigated, in addition to being partially (or wholly) culpable in bringing the consequences upon themselves?

I just can't get my head around that?

Because none of that matters, the thing at stake is whether or not the book was libelous and harmed the search for Madeleine?
All IMO of course.

Hi Ayniia, I get very confused with the legal side of this.  I really don't know how the McCanns can prove the book libellous as the Supreme Court have already ruled that it is not, that is why I was so surprised that they can continued with this trial.  

I suppose it now rests on whether Goncalo Amaral's book damaged the 'Search' - a claim that now seems ludicrous following the revelation that the McCanns suppressed the Smith family e-fit for five years.  They must also prove that the damage they suffered adds up to the figure claimed, and that is questionable as they were not able to produce a qualified expert.  

Can this Court declare the book libellous if the Supreme Court have said it is not?

Mikey wrote:Please could someone explain to me; how is it possible to reach a verdict, when everybody (presumably the judge included) knows that the plaintiffs are very likely still being investigated, in addition to being partially (or wholly) culpable in bringing the consequences upon themselves?

I just can't get my head around that?

I agree Mikey, it feels as though we are in a twilight zone.  I imagine the Judge and the Portuguese legal system are trying to focus on the libel and nothing but the libel, but I don't see how they can avoid being influenced by outside events.

Cristobel wrote:
I suppose it now rests on whether Goncalo Amaral's book damaged the 'Search' - a claim that now seems ludicrous following the revelation that the McCanns suppressed the Smith family e-fit for five years.  They must also prove that the damage they suffered adds up to the figure claimed, and that is questionable as they were not able to produce a qualified expert.  

Can this Court declare the book libellous if the Supreme Court have said it is not?

As I see it, the book has been judged by a higher court not to be libellous and the continuation of the trial in the lower court is to determine whether its publication, and the broadcast of the documentary based on its contents, have caused the McCanns and their children to have suffered such damage as they have claimed in their plaint - which I understand runs to some 36 pages, none of which I've been able to locate online.

It often seems to be forgotten that this is not simply a contest between the McCanns and Dr Amaral - there are 3 other defendants on trial here but, without seeing the plaint, it's not possible to ascertain whether it's conceivable that one or more could be held culpable in some way while the others could be judged to be blameless.

IMO this court would be ill-advised to make any judgement that is not in accord with that of the higher courts for the simple reason that any such judgement will most probably be overturned on appeal.  Judges may appear to be remote and other-worldly, but they have reputations to make/maintain too and no judge who hopes to advance up the greasy pole to the dizzy of heights of appeal and supreme courts can expect to do if they become known for making bad calls.

From McCannfiles.com:
Kate and Gerry McCann to write a book [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By Lori Campbell
27/04/2008

Anguished Kate and Gerry McCann are to write a book about their year of hell since little Madeleine disappeared.

The couple are desperate to tell the truth of their ordeal and plan to publish a tell-all book with the help of a ghost-writer - with all proceeds going to the Find Madeleine Fund.

They have had "countless" approaches by publishers and writers who want to help put their story into words and answer all the unfounded allegations they have faced.

Next Saturday is the first anniversary of the day four-year-old Madeleine was snatched from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

As they prepare to mark the agonising milestone their official spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "It will be the family's story, the only official book. Kate and Gerry are both keen to put the truth of everything that has happened to them on record.

"It will be a detailed account of their experience, from the pain of the night Madeleine was kidnapped, to being named as official suspects in the investigation."

Kate and Gerry have been gagged by Portuguese secrecy laws which ban them from speaking out while they are still "arguidos" (official suspects). They have been forced to stay silent while detectives leak malicious stories about them to the Portuguese Press.

Disgraced police chief Goncalo Amaral, who led the investigation, has angered the McCanns with plans to publish his own story. They have vowed to hit back once suspect status is lifted.

Mr Mitchell added: "A number of books are being published in Portugal and the UK. Kate and Gerry want the public to know the real truth."

The couple have been boosted by an "inspirational" meeting" with US dad Ed Smart, reunited with his kidnapped daughter after nine months. The encounter is shown on Wednesday's ITV1 documentary Madeleine One Year On: Campaign for Change.
Unquote


So it looks to me they were going to sue him even before they knew the contents of the book. It also seems to me that just after the press was brought into line, the arguido status due to be lifted, a well-paid interview with Oprah Winfrey arranged, the film deal also waiting in the wings, the rogatories in the bag - they were riding high.

Mr Mitchell added: "A number of books are being published in Portugal and the UK. Kate and Gerry want the public to know the real truth."

Yet, no other author got sued.

BTW, what is real truth by Mitchell a la Mccanns standard? As in? vs 'false' truth?
Trust Mitchell (and Mccanns) to think of that (real truth) not just the truth. It speaks volume!
The lying mind does serve up nugget like that.

Can anyone explain why just to Lisbon process days suspects kidnappers appear worldwide? Is this globalization?
And where to hide the kidnappers until 7 January?

---

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

I'm a bit of a technophobe but the above should be the libel trial day 10 report. It's on the Hideho FB page.

Here's the transcript for Day 10 as shown on ukjusticeforum:

Libel trial in Lisbon - Day 10

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 10


(27.11.2013, 10.00am)

Dra Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is today substituted by her assistant, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
The Judge seeks further confirmation from Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer that they no longer wish to call Dr Paulo Sargento to the stand
Defence lawyers who were previously ordered to provide financial documents to the Court seek and receive a 10 day extension.

Witness Luis Froes is recalled today to give further evidence. He previously testified on the 5th November having been called by lawyer Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto acting on behalf of Valentim de CarvalhoFilmes and VC Multimedia.  His return to Court today was ordered by the Judge following his failure to provide qualified responses to certain questions on the previous occasion.

Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.


VC - refers to some invoices which the Clerk to the Court presents to LF, and asks to what they refer.
LF reads and says he is aware of these documents.

VC - What is the first document about?
LF presumes that it is about the cost of the seals.

VC - Is it an invoice?
LF says the amount is €75,000. He adds that the seals guarantee the authenticity of the product.

VC - Is the function of the seals to authenticate the DVDs?
LF - It is. The witness thinks that the contract indicated that VC Multimedia were responsible for the cost of the seals.

VC adds that VC Multimedia had to prove that it had the rights.

LF reads the second document.

VC – Getting back on the first document.
LF – VC Multimedia charged Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A. (owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã) with the cost of the seals.

VC – About the second document?
LF says it is an invoice for €xxxxxx to Presslivre.

VC – And about the third document?
LF – It concerns the distributed copies.

VC – Do you remember having given authorisation to destroy the unsold copies?
LF says he does vaguely remember they were destroyed.

VC – Is it usual practice when products cease to be bought?
LF says it is.

VC – There is a number that doesn't correspond to the number of surplus copies. It seems the invoice concerns fewer copies than there actually were. Subtracting to the number of distributed copies for sale the number of unsold (destroyed) copies gives a slight difference in relation to the invoice.

LF doesn't explain this difference.

VC – Apart from this edition, was there a second edition in Portugal or in other foreign countries?
LF says that in this case he would have had to authorise it, which he never did.

VC – You don't remember.
LF says he doesn't.

Evidence ends.

After a break, the Plaintiffs lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso plays a recording of the original TV broadcast of the documentary (with publicity etc.) to the Court on a small screen. After a few technical problems, he decides to substitute the original broadcast with the DVD.

The Judge takes some notes.

It is scheduled that two video presentations are also played to the Court, but Dr Ricardo Afonso desists of one (an interview made on 16th May 2009) and plays the second one, dated 27th May 2009 (SIC, Querida Julia program).

The Judge takes some notes of Querida Julia's round table.

Taking part are Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and, on the phone from Brussels, Duarte Levy.
The video starts with mention of GA's condemnation related to his involvement in the Joana Cipriano case. GA states that the new suspect is a British man (whose name is never disclosed, but everybody will understand who he is, a dying man) accused of assaulting teenagers  and with convictions in the UK.  GA criticises the PJ for having let the private detective group Metodo 3 undertake the investigation of this man and his possible involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Duarte Levy states that the suspect is in Germany and that he was informed that this man (married to a German woman) wasn't properly investigated in Germany and that detectives weren't even allowed into his hospital room.  The discussion expands to cover the moral aspect of taking advantage of someone who is seriously ill.  Duarte Levy says that the documentary, with English subtitles, made it possible for those with little or no understanding of the Maddie case to appreciate in less than an hour what was at stake. Paulo Sargento underlines that little is known about what really happened between 5.30pm and 8.30pm and adds that the British investigators' paedophile hypothesis is geographically implausible. Gonçalo Amaral concludes saying that trusting in justice is a must (referring to his condemnation in the Joana Case).

The gathering of evidence has concluded.
The Judge proposes that the last session with the allegations and  statements from the parties be fixed for the 18 December but changes this to 7 January 2014 which is the first date when all parties will be available.

End of session.

I'm bemused by every aspect of this trial and hope to find time during the festive holidays to study it in more depth with a view to predicting the likely outcome - which, on first, second, & third reading would seem to be a foregone conclusion.

Having just done my usual late night/early morning google search to see if there is any 'breaking news' in this case, I found this:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I suspect this publication is the work of expats who have enthusiastically embraced every aspect of life in Portugual and, in particular, its vineyards.  How else can one explain why the profound errors in this article by Brendan de Beer  (shurely shome mishtake?)  are akin to those frequently made by the renowned columnist Lunchtime O'Booze than a serious piece of journalism?  

Re the comments section: Dr Amaral as a person of interest?    I think I can safely say TM have gone more a than step too far and should have stuck with abduction by aliens as being a more credible explanation for Madeleine vanishing off the face of the earth.

Running parallel to the libel case is an injunction by the McCanns stopping Amaral from selling his book and a DVD which was aired on Portuguese television channel TVI.
The injunction came to force in January 2010, when a Lisbon court ruled the book and video could not be circulated in Portugal.
The decision was later overturned by a Lisbon Appeal Court, and following a counter claim by the McCanns, the Supreme Justice Tribunal upheld this verdict.

It seems I may owe Mr de Beer an apology.   Having read the above in the early hours, it appeared to me he has implied that the McCanns' appeal against the decision of the appellate court was upheld by the Supreme Court.  

In the cold light of day I can see this may not be the case.   Nevertheless, he, or his editors, should take steps to avoid any ambiguity in such matters.

Don't feel guilty, u.T. It's IMO rather clever and leading phrasing:

Running parallel to the libel case is an injunction by the McCanns stopping Amaral from selling his book and a DVD which was aired on Portuguese television channel TVI.
It is NOT running parallel; that case is over, lost by the McCanns and closed.
The injunction came to force in January 2010, when a Lisbon court ruled the book and video could not be circulated in Portugal.
The decision was later overturned by a Lisbon Appeal Court, and following a counter claim by the McCanns, the Supreme Justice Tribunal upheld this verdict.
This is mixing "Injunction", "Decision" and "Verdict in a way, that a quick read produces the intended misunderstanding, namely that parallel to the libel case, there is injunction case to Amaral's book and the McCanns have so far won the last session ...

Mr de Beer's piece has  got TrulyJudy's knickers in a twist - the pros are proudly proclaiming another victory for their idols.  How long before the Mirror or one of the other tabloids runs the story?

Have you seen the comment from that arch McCann supporter Graham Perry that Mr Amaral should be interviewed as a person of interest?
 


I last heard of him when he was in the former USSR organising the search for Madeleine; I was hoping he was still there!

That's the one that had me  at 3am this morning NFWTD  

This is worthy of note:
Speaking to The Portugal News in early 2009, Gerry McCann stressed “that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is no evidence to suggest that Kate and I were involved in any theories.”
Gerry McCann also insisted they would have been legally compelled to be available for a reconstruction due to their status as arguidos, even the motives of Portuguese police were questionable.
“Don’t get me wrong, we had major concerns as to why the reconstruction was being done”, arguing that “the police reconstruction was not aimed at finding Madeleine, but rather to look for inconsistencies. There were 12 or 15 people involved and it is inevitable there would be inconsistencies.”

The wee one obviously wasn't keen on the prospect of any 'inconsistencies' being revealed to the world and, thanks to AR driving a coach and horses through the Tapas 9's accounts, now we know why.  

Ah yes.... 'It was a collective mistake' says Gerry in the Swedish interview..listen up T7, if I go down you go down with me..