The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Aiofe]

First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns.  He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.

Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment.  My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.

Of course it can be determined without final information.

And the word "met" requires more than being in the next room to someone.

[John]

Behind a glass panel where The McCanns couldn't see him.  Hardly interaction.

He was the Coordinator, it wasn't his job to interact. He had a whole bunch of detectives under him to do that.  It is amazing how people who claim to be so well informed about this case still still get the basics wrong and in particular how the detective hierarchy works in Portugal.

Does a Detective Chief Superintendent in the British police question suspects? QED

[Aiofe]

He was the Coordinator, it wasn't his job to interact. He had a whole bunch of detectives under him to do that.  It is amazing how people who claim to be so well informed about this case still still get the basics wrong and in particular how the detective hierarchy works in Portugal.

But he did not meet them.

[jassi]

Which one would you like me to be?  Silly Pillock.  And I thought that this sort of accusation was against Forum Rules.

But I won't bother to report you.  You are doing a fine job of discrediting yourself.  Keep up the good work.

I wasn't making an accusation, merely indicating that only they know if they were involved.

Your logic could only work if you were in possession of all the facts - this you cannot be sure of and therefore the logic is flawed.

[Aiofe]

I wasn't making an accusation, merely indicating that only they know if they were involved.

Your logic could only work if you were in possession of all the facts - this you cannot be sure of and therefore the logic is flawed.

Exactly my point. None of us have all the facts and consequently anything we belief is mere belief- no one 'knows' what happened.

Anyone claiming this is either stupid or lying.

[Lyall]

Exactly my point. None of us have all the facts and consequently anything we belief is mere belief- no one 'knows' what happened.

Anyone claiming this is either stupid or lying.

Absolutely.

[Wonderfulspam]

Exactly my point. None of us have all the facts and consequently anything we belief is mere belief- no one 'knows' what happened.

Anyone claiming this is either stupid or lying.

Kate knows

Daily Mail, 17.9.07
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."


Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have..."

Kate McCann: "Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw."

[John]

But he did not meet them.

Meet?  He was there overseeing his detectives. A Coordinator is responsible for several cases so his duties were varied.  The detectives do the footwork and the interviewing, it was not Dr Amaral's  job.

[Aiofe]

Meet?  He was there overseeing his detectives. A Coordinator is responsible for several cases so his duties were varied.  The detectives do the footwork and the interviewing, it was not Dr Amaral's  job.

So you agree that he did not meet them?

[icabodcrane]

So you agree that he did not meet them?

I think  the point that John is making is that there was no need  for Amaral  to  'meet'  the McCanns ...  it was't  expected  of him   (  indeed, it would have been unusual for an officer of his rank to have been directly involved with victims/suspects  )

John was a policeman, and  knows what he is talking about

[Montclair]

But he did not meet them.
[/quote

Why is this so important for you?

[Carana]

First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns.  He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.

Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment.  My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.

Which question?

[Wonderfulspam]

First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns.  He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.

Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment.  My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.

"Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not"

The book is based on the conclusion of the files as was,

The judge has already said

MC – Then there are no revelations!

So with no difference between the book & the files, the original files would have to be deemed libellous aswell.

[Redblossom]

Which question?

Whether the book is libellous!

John has a very strong point....how can a police theory be libellous? When it has never been disproved? Can police theories be libellous at all? Can any theory be?
 >@@(*&)

[Eleanor]

I think  the point that John is making is that there was no need  for Amaral  to  'meet'  the McCanns ...  it was't  expected  of him   (  indeed, it would have been unusual for an officer of his rank to have been directly involved with victims/suspects  )

John was a policeman, and  knows what he is talking about

ORLY. 

John said that Amaral had "Met" The McCanns, which he obviously hadn't.  But still felt justified in writing a book about people he had never even spoken to.

And Amaral was only a Chief Inspector.  So are you saying that Amaral never personally questioned anyone?  I seem to remember he questioned Robert Murat, and threatened to "Get" him somehow or another.