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

AndyB wrote: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.

The Supreme Court ruled that the book was lawful. But the Supreme Court wasn't in a position to make a judgement upon the effect of the book - that was the purpose of a separate challenge at the recent court case. And the judge decided that distress had been caused by the book and that damages were applicable
These were two different issues for two different courts, and each did the job they were asked to do. They aren't contradictory

AndyB wrote:

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

Do you think AndyB (I know bugger all about the legal system) that the judge has done this knowing full well that Goncalo will appeal and win? thus ending this once and for all.

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

AndyB wrote: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.

The Supreme Court ruled that the book was lawful. The Supreme Court wasn't in a position to make a judgement upon the effect of the book - that was the purpose of a separate challenge at the recent court case. And the judge decided that distress had been caused by the book and that damages were applicable
These were two different issues for two different courts, and each did the job they were asked to do. They aren't contradictory

No they weren't different issues at all, they are inextricably linked. Payments for distress and suffering are only payable if the statements that caused the distress are untrue. Otherwise every criminal named by the papers would be suing for damages. No matter which way you look at it the verdict was perverse. Even if the judgement was correct (and it isn't because it attempts to overrule the supreme court) the quantum is perverse - the McCanns only had one of their claims partially upheld and yet were awarded all that they were asking for.

But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

For example, the English translation of Chapter 20 that I have says re the Smith family:

From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.

This was never given the opportunity to stand up to scrutiny in court, so it cannot be regarded as being an indisputable truth

Poppy wrote:
Do you think AndyB (I know bugger all about the legal system) that the judge has done this knowing full well that Goncalo will appeal and win? thus ending this once and for all.

My knowledge of the Portuguese legal system is on a par with yours, but no, I don't think that. There's no benefit to GA in finding against him so he can win on appeal - why not just find for him in this court? I suspect that Portugal, like the UK, is stuffed full of pompous, arrogant judges who don't really understand what they're doing and GA was a victim of one of them who saw an opportunity to grandstand and draw attention to herself. To draw a football analogy, its like the ref thinking he's bigger than the game

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

CSOT do you think Maddie was abducted and may still be alive?

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

Both the supreme court and the latest court held that GA's book repeated the same facts as those that are in the published police investigation. In other words GA isn't saying anything that the publicly available police files aren't. He drew a conclusion that the supreme court said was a reasonable one to reach based on those facts. I'm a bit confused as to what point your making. Following your logic the PJ should be held liable for damages because they published facts that haven't been tested in court. Like I asked you before, what's the difference between the PJ publishing the facts of the investigation, which you appear to believe is not actionable and GA doing it, which you appear to believe is wrong?

AndyB wrote:

Poppy wrote:
Do you think AndyB (I know bugger all about the legal system) that the judge has done this knowing full well that Goncalo will appeal and win? thus ending this once and for all.

My knowledge of the Portuguese legal system is on a par with yours, but no, I don't think that. There's no benefit to GA in finding against him so he can win on appeal - why not just find for him in this court? I suspect that Portugal, like the UK, is stuffed full of pompous, arrogant judges who don't really understand what they're doing and GA was a victim of one of them who saw an opportunity to grandstand and draw attention to herself. To draw a football analogy, its like the ref thinking he's bigger than the game

I see what your saying AndyB ,but from what I have read at the end of the day she gave the McCann's bugger all,that's why I'm thinking she is on Goncalo's side while making it look like she's on the McCann'side.

The point I am making is that GA was found by the judge to have caused distress by publishing the book, and that damages can therefore be awarded under Portuguese law. The PJ files are irrelevant because the PJ weren't the ones being sued. I don't know if that's possible (in Portugal) re the public release of case files. If not, that left the book as an obvious target

The PJ files and the book are not the same. For a start, the PJ files weren't released under the sensational title "The Truth of a Lie" - a big mistake in my view. He could have made his point while remaining - how can I put this? - a little more restrained

AndyB wrote:

Poppy wrote:
Do you think AndyB (I know bugger all about the legal system) that the judge has done this knowing full well that Goncalo will appeal and win? thus ending this once and for all.

My knowledge of the Portuguese legal system is on a par with yours, but no, I don't think that. There's no benefit to GA in finding against him so he can win on appeal - why not just find for him in this court? I suspect that Portugal, like the UK, is stuffed full of pompous, arrogant judges who don't really understand what they're doing and GA was a victim of one of them who saw an opportunity to grandstand and draw attention to herself. To draw a football analogy, its like the ref thinking he's bigger than the game

Thank you for posts on this thread Andyb as they are simple to understand and clear away the clouds of confusion .To take the football analogy further, it wouldn't be the first time the ref took a goodie bag!Rare but it has happened.

So where does that all leave us Chop! Should we ignore Gonçalo? The book? Put him down as an emotional fool who really should have known better? And maybe a lot of people on this site are being a bit too unrestrained in the dialog we have about the case with each other. I'm just interested in what you think?

marina wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

CSOT do you think Maddie was abducted and may still be alive?

You can phone a friend,the McCanns are a very proactive family.

Andrew wrote:@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.

Still reading myself, Andrew

Found a bit more about Goncalo admitting he's held much back - from  the Jornal de Noticias interview of 27 July 2008:

Recently you said that there is much you know and have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out?

It is logical that yes.

What and for what purpose?

I cannot disclose it.

It leaves room for a second book, for example?

Maybe. Let's see.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html


Will we ever see a second book now? Perhaps if the appeal is won?

marina wrote:

marina wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

CSOT do you think Maddie was abducted and may still be alive?

You can phone a friend,the McCanns are a very proactive family.

Sorry Marina but are you trying to say CSoT is on TM? I don`t agree with everything said and have given my reasons but you only need to look back at the work done by that poster in the past to see where his/her loyalties lie.

I thought there already was a second book, called "The English Gag".

chirpyinsect wrote:

marina wrote:

marina wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

CSOT do you think Maddie was abducted and may still be alive?

You can phone a friend,the McCanns are a very proactive family.

Sorry Marina but are you trying to say CSoT is on TM? I don`t agree with everything said and have given my reasons but you only need to look back at the work done by that poster in the past to see where his/her loyalties lie.

My comment above was just some lighthearted banter.
Just curious as he/she thinks Mr Amaral got the time of death wrong but is not prepared to say when he/she thinks the death did occur or indeed if there was a death.
Thanks for your input.

Ok marina, just for you as my last contribution of the day - I've been following this for eight years now and still don't know what happened. Not much for eight years' work is it? Lots of sleepless nights with ideas spinning round my head, countless people smiling sweetly (but dozing off) as I tell them the latest news, and on four separate occasions being thrown off another forum just because I wanted to test the strength of certain popular theories (I have only ever been CSoT on here though). Frankly, I don't think any explanation stands up to scrutiny. That's why I find it so intriguing. But it doesn't alter any of the observations I've made on this thread about the recent court case

Resistor wrote:I thought there already was a second book, called "The English Gag".

Yes, of course! Only a small part was ever translated, I believe. But if there were further revelations in it I guess we'd have heard from one of the reliable translators who've helped us so much.

crabbit wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Poppy wrote:
Do you think AndyB (I know bugger all about the legal system) that the judge has done this knowing full well that Goncalo will appeal and win? thus ending this once and for all.

My knowledge of the Portuguese legal system is on a par with yours, but no, I don't think that. There's no benefit to GA in finding against him so he can win on appeal - why not just find for him in this court? I suspect that Portugal, like the UK, is stuffed full of pompous, arrogant judges who don't really understand what they're doing and GA was a victim of one of them who saw an opportunity to grandstand and draw attention to herself. To draw a football analogy, its like the ref thinking he's bigger than the game

Thank you for posts on this thread Andyb as they are simple to understand and clear away the clouds of confusion .To take the football analogy further, it wouldn't be the first time the ref took a goodie bag!Rare but it has happened.

You're welcome Crabbit. I found an interesting paragraph about the Portuguese judicial system while reading about Casa Pia. Its from Wikipedia, and the reference quoted seems to be specific to Casa Pia rather than the general observation that Wikipedia claims but I'll quote it here because it backs up your goodie bag idea and because external political interference is something that GA has always complained about.

Wikipedia article about Casa Pia wrote:The country's justice system, often accused of being excruciatingly slow, is believed by some opinion makers such as journalists and Catalina Pestana (former head of Casa Pia), to be vulnerable to external pressures of well-connected personalities and the possibility of corrupting external interference has been considered a real danger, according to those critics

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal#Investigation_and_trial

marina wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

marina wrote:

marina wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:But the statements that caused the alleged distress in this case were never proved to be true. The statements contained in the PJ files, repeated by GA in the book, were "official" but never tested in court, so they weren't "fact"

CSOT do you think Maddie was abducted and may still be alive?

You can phone a friend,the McCanns are a very proactive family.

Sorry Marina but are you trying to say CSoT is on TM? I don`t agree with everything said and have given my reasons but you only need to look back at the work done by that poster in the past to see where his/her loyalties lie.

My comment above was just some lighthearted banter.
Just curious as he/she thinks Mr Amaral got the time of death wrong but is not prepared to say when he/she thinks the death did occur or indeed if there was a death.
Thanks for your input.

No worries Marina. I believe in GA`s plight wholeheartedly and have contributed to his fund even before the verdict. Like CSoT though I don`t hold entirely with his findings about the time of death being the 3rd. Of course I also accept he was in a far better position than anyone to form an opinion at that time.
Reading up on some his interviews posted here last night and reading between the lines he seems to be saying that he knows more than he was able to say in his book. Perhaps he has become aware of other information or perhaps he has developed his theory since the shelving. We don`t know if that is the case, however it would be a stretch to think that an investigation that was just over a year old has not progressed one iota from May 3rd or indeed 15 months on from then.
I fervently hope the PJ have been working quietly behind the scenes and have studied things that were not followed up on at the time. GA certainly hints at some of those. ie the Polish couple.

Resistor wrote:I thought there already was a second book, called "The English Gag".

I remember asking this question numerous times on the other place when was a member moons ago.

Has anyone read this book and where can I get it...

Andrew wrote:

Resistor wrote:I thought there already was a second book, called "The English Gag".

I remember asking this question numerous times on the other place when was a member moons ago.

Has anyone read this book and where can I get it...

...you won't find it

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id289.html

Andrew wrote:

Resistor wrote:I thought there already was a second book, called "The English Gag".

I remember asking this question numerous times on the other place when was a member moons ago.

Has anyone read this book and where can I get it...

As far as i'm aware Andrew this book has'nt been published i dont think he would have risked publishing it while the trial was ongoing,i'm sure i read a while back that he would'nt be publishing it.

If he wins his appeal maybe he will bring it out but to be honest i think he would be too scared to publish it,but never say never eh.

Daisy have merged your two separate threads here, as we might be in danger of looking like the other forum.