Re: BREAKING NEWS - Goncalo loses libel/damages trial and must pay damages

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 9:44 am

So start a thread about it then, detailing where you think Amaral went wrong and people can discuss it in an appropriate place, rather than just throwing in off-topic comments, which people are going to respond negatively too, because they're on the thread to discuss something else..not whether Amaral's theory is correct or not

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 9:46 am

It isn't off-topic

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 9:47 am

Yes it is...this is about the libel trial, not the theory behind it

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 9:48 am

Surely the two things are inextricably linked?
If you write a book that is true, and hurt somebody's feelings, there's nothing they can do about it
If you write a book in which the detail is unproven, and it hurts somebody's feelings, an award of damages makes sense

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 10:18 am

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Surely the two things are inextricably linked?
If you write a book that is true, and hurt somebody's feelings, there's nothing they can do about it
If you write a book in which the detail is unproven, and it hurts somebody's feelings, an award of damages makes sense

There is some doubt on to which the judge actually found in favour of the McCanns.one statement covers an awful lot,have you read the findings,heres a link,proven fact 81 is the only that refers to any damage to the McCanns.

http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/McCann-v-Amaral-VERDICT-Translation-1-2313214.html

81. As a result of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's statements in the book, the documentary and interview with the Morning Post, the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish,concern, having suffered insomnia and lack of appetite

The Judge doesn't refer to which statements in the book caused the above.

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 10:20 am

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Surely the two things are inextricably linked?
If you write a book that is true, and hurt somebody's feelings, there's nothing they can do about it
If you write a book in which the detail is unproven, and it hurts somebody's feelings, an award of damages makes sense

I think the best thing you can say about the book is that it was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary situation. The poor bloke must have felt like the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, or something.

Sometimes I think this case has a genuinely nightmarish quality - a bit like being in some old B-movie hokum like Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, where you're desperately trying to get everybody else to see what is happening, but they've already been assimilated....

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 10:22 am

caricature wrote:
81. As a result of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's statements in the book, the documentary and interview with the Morning Post, the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish,concern, having suffered insomnia and lack of appetite

The Judge doesn't refer to which statements in the book caused the above.

A lot of his statements could have brought about that reaction in them if they were true.

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 10:45 am

Did the Judge find against the publishers and film makers? they were part of the law suit.

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 12:52 pm

Seicento wrote:
Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Surely the two things are inextricably linked?
If you write a book that is true, and hurt somebody's feelings, there's nothing they can do about it
If you write a book in which the detail is unproven, and it hurts somebody's feelings, an award of damages makes sense

I think the best thing you can say about the book is that it was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary situation. The poor bloke must have felt like the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, or something.

Sometimes I think this case has a genuinely nightmarish quality - a bit like being in some old B-movie hokum like Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, where you're desperately trying to get everybody else to see what is happening, but they've already been assimilated....

Marvellous film! It is the one with those pods isn't it? One in the back room whilst the clone is in the next room and I recall some frothy stuff.. Gosh! Just what we're seeing now...

marina Tue 05 May 2015, 6:16 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Surely the two things are inextricably linked?
If you write a book that is true, and hurt somebody's feelings, there's nothing they can do about it
If you write a book in which the detail is unproven, and it hurts somebody's feelings, an award of damages makes sense

Good idea by Susible.
Give us your theory CSOT about the time of death or do you believe Kate and Gerry are simply misunderstood and Maddie could walk into a local police station on the Algarve at any time!

Dee Coy Tue 05 May 2015, 6:46 pm

I don't think everyone clings to the theory put forward in Goncalo's book as gospel. I think most recognise that this was the theory arrived at at the time based on the facts as far as Amaral's team had assimilated them up to that point. It is the most logical and simple solution based on the known evidence.

But things have evolved since then. Don't forget Goncalo was removed from the case just after Martin Smith recognised Gerry coming down the plane steps and the Smiths were never re-interviewed despite Goncalo's intention to have them return to Luz for a formal ID. That's just one example. I just think it's important to remember that that was the findings at that time based on the investigation at that point. That investigation was curtailed.

It's quite possible that Amaral's thinking has also evolved. We don't know. It's irrelevant to the argument whether or not people adhere faithfully to the conclusions in the book. Some will, some have moved on. That fact remains that the book describes the conclusions reached at that time in accordance with the official police files. How can that be defamatory?

TheTruthWillOut Tue 05 May 2015, 6:55 pm

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think everyone clings to the theory put forward in Goncalo's book as gospel. I think most recognise that this was the theory arrived at at the time based on the facts as far as Amaral's team had assimilated them up to that point. It is the most logical and simple solution based on the known evidence.

But things have evolved since then. Don't forget Goncalo was removed from the case just after Martin Smith recognised Gerry coming down the plane steps and the Smiths were never re-interviewed despite Goncalo's intention to have them return to Luz for a formal ID. That's just one example. I just think it's important to remember that that was the findings at that time based on the investigation at that point. That investigation was curtailed.

It's quite possible that Amaral's thinking has also evolved. We don't know. It's irrelevant to the argument whether or not people adhere faithfully to the conclusions in the book. Some will, some have moved on. That fact remains that the book describes the conclusions reached at that time in accordance with the official police files. How can that be defamatory?

QFT!

I wish I could write a post like this.

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 6:56 pm

Quite agree,read the files I think is the only way.

Châtelaine Tue 05 May 2015, 6:57 pm

IMO and no proof, but Dr Amaral's theory may have evolved over time.
Or ... As I've said many times before, he also may with his book have offered them an "easy" way out at the time.
Whatever.
IMO again.
I'll stand by and donate [to his defend fund, of course].

ETA at a previous post [Dee Coy?]. [ sorry, have two terriers, who're going crazy - as they do ...] We might be on the same line ...

Andrew Tue 05 May 2015, 7:00 pm

I would really like to know what else GA does know but has kept back?

Not sure if anyone can post a link from that interview some time ago when he said that?

costello Tue 05 May 2015, 7:12 pm

Châtelaine wrote:IMO and no proof, but Dr Amaral's theory may have evolved over time.
Or ... As I've said many times before, he also may with his book have offered them an "easy" way out at the time.
Whatever.
IMO again.
I'll stand by and donate [to his defend fund, of course].

ETA at a previous post [Dee Coy?]. [ sorry, have two terriers, who're going crazy - as they do ...] We might be on the same line ...

I agree with the "easy way out option" at the time Chatelaine, obviously being the gentleman he seems. I think there might be several people who are thinking along the same lines.

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 8:19 pm

marina wrote:Give us your theory CSOT about the time of death or do you believe Kate and Gerry are simply misunderstood and Maddie could walk into a local police station on the Algarve at any time!

No, no, no. And I don't have to have a theory of my own in order to spot the flaws in another. Apologies to those who think this is off-topic or (bizarrely) that I am trying to derail the thread, but I was always taught that it's polite to answer questions that have been put to you

Dee Coy asked how can a theory that repeats police files be defamatory. Well, in the UK that would be obvious because the police files would be secret and the contents would only become defamatory if published (for example, in a book called something provocative like "The Truth of a Lie"). I recognise that in this instance the police files were made available to those who were interested, but there is a huge difference between the sober records of the official police files, and a book sold on the open market

candy and others have wondered how a lower court can award damages when a higher court has found someone not guilty
To illustrate that this is possible, I need only offer you the name of OJ Simpson. And in this case, there is a subtle difference between defamation (ie damaging someone's reputation) and causing distress to the claimant - which the judge appears to have taken into account

Antonia Tue 05 May 2015, 8:29 pm

[quote (edited)
Dee Coy asked how can a theory that repeats police files be defamatory. Well, in the UK that would be obvious because the police files would be secret and the contents would only become defamatory if published (for example, in a book called something provocative like "The Truth of a Lie"). I recognise that in this instance the police files were made available to those who were interested, but there is a huge difference between the sober records of official police files, and a book sold on the open market

[/quote]

I don't see a 'huge difference' between the official police files available on the internet (free) for anyone with basic PC skills who are interested, and a book in a bookshop (for which you have to pay) if you are interested enough to buy it.

You describe the police files as 'sober' - some of the tapas statements are hilarious/strange/contradictory - sober is not the word I would use for some of the files! Are you implying the book was less than sober?!

Dee Coy Tue 05 May 2015, 8:31 pm

Andrew wrote:I would really like to know what else GA does know but has kept back?

Not sure if anyone can post a link from that interview some time ago when he said that?

I'm re-reading the interviews by Goncalo on Mccannfiles. He mentions this in the "Focus" interview about a quarter of the way down on this page:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html

Focus – You state that you have not told everything that you know.

G.A. – And I haven't.

Focus – Why?

G.A. – Because I am a jurist, too. Let's see how the situation evolves.

Focus – And how can the situation evolve?

G.A. – The things that are missing are important in terms of the investigation, but they are ours… When it is said: these are your convictions… This is the understanding of a work team and even with the English police. And with documents. It's this kind of thing, for any action that may be coming. I don't believe, but who knows.

By gum, those interviews are fascinating and well worth another read. All sorts of information in there that's been forgotten. GA also confirms the investigation was curtailed and investigative lines they were pursuing were cut short. He states that other evidence may have led to further conclusions being reached and confirms the book merely reiterates the position they were at then.

Here's another example of how things were developing but not concluded:

GA: And when I left, I was naturally closer to the truth. Two examples: Apart from our need to know who the friends of the McCann couple were, or if they knew anyone in Portugal, or who drove the car… if they eventually visited another apartment, if they used to meet someone, if they deposited someone… just for us to understand. Towards the end, I was informed that they had visited people at a villa in Praia da Luz. We went to check it out. Then, we were informed that the McCanns had visited an apartment block near the cemetery. And we were working on that, in order to confirm whether it was them or not. This was how we were trying to understand where the body was. And there are many persons who were not investigated, who were not in the process.

marina Tue 05 May 2015, 8:44 pm

Deleted

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 8:51 pm

Antonia wrote:I don't see a 'huge difference' between the official police files available on the internet (free) for anyone with basic PC skills who are interested, and a book in a bookshop (for which you have to pay) if you are interested enough to buy it.

The Supreme Court had no problem with the book remaining on sale. Fair enough under Portuguese law, even though it wouldn't haven't been allowed in the UK. But it appears to have come with some baggage, with last week's judgement that it caused distress to the claimants. I don't see those two things as being incompatible
The Supreme Court ruling was about the legality of the book; the more recent court case was about the effect it had

marina Tue 05 May 2015, 8:56 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
marina wrote:Give us your theory CSOT about the time of death or do you believe Kate and Gerry are simply misunderstood and Maddie could walk into a local police station on the Algarve at any time!
No, no, no. And I don't have to have a theory of my own in order to spot the flaws in another. Apologies to those who think this is off-topic or (bizarrely) that I am trying to derail the thread, but I was always taught that it's polite to answer questions that have been put to you

Dee Coy asked how can a theory that repeats police files be defamatory. Well, in the UK that would be obvious because the police files would be secret and the contents would only become defamatory if published (for example, in a book called something provocative like "The Truth of a Lie"). I recognise that in this instance the police files were made available to those who were interested, but there is a huge difference between the sober records of official police files, and a book sold on the open market

Regarding defamation, candy and others have wondered how a lower court can award damages when a higher court has found someone not guilty
To illustrate that this is possible, I need only offer you the name of OJ Simpson. And in this case, there is a subtle difference between defamation (ie damaging someone's reputation) and causing distress to the claimant - which the judge appears to have taken into account

You never answered the question. Do you think Maddie was abducted and is still alive?

Antonia Tue 05 May 2015, 9:05 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
Antonia wrote:I don't see a 'huge difference' between the official police files available on the internet (free) for anyone with basic PC skills who are interested, and a book in a bookshop (for which you have to pay) if you are interested enough to buy it.
The Supreme Court had no problem with the book remaining on sale. Fair enough under Portuguese law, even though it wouldn't haven't been allowed in the UK. But it appears to have come with some baggage, with last week's judgement that it caused distress to the claimants. I don't see those two things as being incompatible
The Supreme Court ruling was about the legality of the book; the more recent court case was about the effect it had

Of course the Mccanns claimed it caused them distress; they were looking for lotsa dosh. But they did not prove it caused them distress. Look at the crap witnesses they put up like Mr Pike the psychologist who turned out not to be such a professional. No doubt the book really annoyed them - but not for the reasons they stated!

Andrew Tue 05 May 2015, 9:21 pm

@Deecoy.

Many thanks for that. That's my bed time reading for the night sorted.

Read bits of it ages ago but it's amazing how much stuff you actually forget as well.

Cheers.

AndyB Tue 05 May 2015, 9:33 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
marina wrote:Give us your theory CSOT about the time of death or do you believe Kate and Gerry are simply misunderstood and Maddie could walk into a local police station on the Algarve at any time!
No, no, no. And I don't have to have a theory of my own in order to spot the flaws in another. Apologies to those who think this is off-topic or (bizarrely) that I am trying to derail the thread, but I was always taught that it's polite to answer questions that have been put to you

Dee Coy asked how can a theory that repeats police files be defamatory. Well, in the UK that would be obvious because the police files would be secret and the contents would only become defamatory if published (for example, in a book called something provocative like "The Truth of a Lie"). I recognise that in this instance the police files were made available to those who were interested, but there is a huge difference between the sober records of the official police files, and a book sold on the open market

What is the difference? One is the documentation compiled by the police as part of their investigation, the other is a commentary and conclusion based on those facts. You cannot libel someone by repeating facts that a government agency has released to the public, and drawing conclusions from them that the supreme court has already said are perfectly reasonable to draw.

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:candy and others have wondered how a lower court can award damages when a higher court has found someone not guilty
To illustrate that this is possible, I need only offer you the name of OJ Simpson. And in this case, there is a subtle difference between defamation (ie damaging someone's reputation) and causing distress to the claimant - which the judge appears to have taken into account

How on earth is OJ simpson relevant? He was acquitted by a criminal court where the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and convicted by a civil court where the burden of proof is the much lower balance of probabilities. Civil courts are not lower courts than criminal courts, they are different areas of law. It is of course possible for a court of first instance to ignore the case law set by the Appeal Court and held by the Supreme Court but such verdicts are called "perverse" and, in any sane legal system, are overturned on appeal

Sponsored content