Are the McCanns proceeding with their libel action against Amaral ?

[Eleanor]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

[icabodcrane]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

Is that true on either count?

Could you please explain how you know that Clarence Mitchell is still a "paid" spokesman?  Or are you just making a presumption that he is?

And secondly, is there some reason why this case is not subject to judicial secrecy when the earlier case was? I was not aware that judicial secrecy is not relevant to some cases in Portugal. Perhaps you could explain why this one is not subject to it?

You know,  I have no concrete response to give to either of those questions

I  did  'assume'  that Mitchell was still being paid by the McCanns  ...  but only by virtue of the fact that he has still been speaking on their behalf until very recently   (  and I didn't think he was doing it for free )   

As to judicial secrecy,  again,  I was,  indeed,  making another assumption  ...  based on the public access to the Amaral/McCann  court hearings in the past  (  where judicial secrecy did not apply  ...  we had tweets from the court room  ) 

I stand corrected  though

[gilet]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

Is that true on either count?

Could you please explain how you know that Clarence Mitchell is still a "paid" spokesman?  Or are you just making a presumption that he is?

And secondly, is there some reason why this case is not subject to judicial secrecy when the earlier case was? I was not aware that judicial secrecy is not relevant to some cases in Portugal. Perhaps you could explain why this one is not subject to it?

You know,  I have no concrete response to give to either of those questions

I  did  'assume'  that Mitchell was still being paid by the McCanns  ...  but only by virtue of the fact that he has still been speaking on their behalf until very recently   (  and I didn't think he was doing it for free )   

As to judicial secrecy,  again,  I was,  indeed,  making another assumption  ...  based on the public access to the Amaral/McCann  court hearings in the past  (  where judicial secrecy did not apply  ...  we had tweets from the court room  ) 

I stand corrected  though

Please don't see my post as a correction because I have no idea as to the answers to the questions.

I would be interested if anyone can answer either of them.

[icabodcrane]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

Well of course they are not obliged  to be open and honest with the public   ...   but it would be better  if they were,  don't you think  ?

[Eleanor]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

Well of course they are not obliged  to be open and honest with the public   ...   but it would be better  if they were,  don't you think  ?

No, I don't think so.

Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree.  This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.

[icabodcrane]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

Well of course they are not obliged  to be open and honest with the public   ...   but it would be better  if they were,  don't you think  ?

No, I don't think so.

Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree.  This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.

Perhaps

I must say though,  I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ...  but you may be right,  and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy,  and polite niceties

[Eleanor]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

Well of course they are not obliged  to be open and honest with the public   ...   but it would be better  if they were,  don't you think  ?

No, I don't think so.

Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree.  This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.

Perhaps

I must say though,  I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ...  but you may be right,  and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy,  and polite niceties

Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly bad manners for any of the parties to discuss this.  And anyway, no settlement was reached, so nothing to discuss.

So what did you expect?  "Guess wot, Amaral has caved in, ha ha ha"?  Sheesh, perish the thought.

[registrar]

Amaral,

and I don't wish the guy any more bad luck than he is having right now

disqualified himself from the case

by turning his backside 180 degrees in his bed

when told a 3 year old was missing

on his watch - on his patch

inexcusable - basta

[icabodcrane]

But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?

I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff  can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such.  So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away?  What people think is irrelevant.

Well,  there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ...  the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any  'misunderstanding'  by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened

The McCanns are under no obligation to do so.  It is no one's business but their own.

Well of course they are not obliged  to be open and honest with the public   ...   but it would be better  if they were,  don't you think  ?

No, I don't think so.

Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree.  This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.

Perhaps

I must say though,  I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ...  but you may be right,  and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy,  and polite niceties

Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly bad manners for any of the parties to discuss this.  And anyway, no settlement was reached, so nothing to discuss.

So what did you expect?  "Guess wot, Amaral has caved in, ha ha ha"?  Sheesh, perish the thought.

Something like that,  yes

I would have expected the McCanns,  through a spokesperson,   to have proclaimed Amaral had come to them pleading for a way out of their libel action  ...  and that they had given him short shrift and said uniquivically that they would have their day in court and he would pay for the damage he has done to their search for Madeleine

This is the man,  after all,  of whom Kate McCann said in her book:

"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"

I really don't believe they would be concerned, therefore about offending his sensibilities with  'bad manners'  ...  I really don't

[icabodcrane]

I would have expected the McCanns,  through a spokesperson,   to have proclaimed Amaral had come to them pleading for a way out of their libel action  ...  and that they had given him short shrift and said uniquivically that they would have their day in court and he would pay for the damage he has done to their search for Madeleine

This is the man,  after all,  of whom Kate McCann said in her book:

"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"

I really don't believe they would be concerned, therefore about offending his sensibilities with  'bad manners'  ...  I really don't

And how would that sort of a public pronouncement have helped the McCanns and Amaral to have reached a mutually satisfactory settlement?

Well I wouldn't  expect the McCanns to be in the slightest bit concerned about what would  'satisfy'  Goncalo Amaral

... if what they have claimed in their libel writ is true,  then nothing less than than his abject defeat in a court of law would suffice

Wouldn't you say  ?

[Eleanor]

So they wouldn't want to be settling to appease him then,  wouldn't you say?

[icabodcrane]

So they wouldn't want to be settling to appease him then,  wouldn't you say?

Well of course not  !  ....  where did that question come from  ?   

*scratches head*

[Chinagirl]

Could the following scenario be a possibility:

1.  The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.

2.  Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.

3.  McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.

4.  Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.

As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action.  In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement.  In this particular case it was not reached.

[icabodcrane]

Could the following scenario be a possibility:

1.  The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.

2.  Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.

3.  McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.

4.  Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.

As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action.  In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement.  In this particular case it was not reached.

It's possible of course  (  anything is possible at this point,  given that the British press have reported not one iota )

Why would the McCanns be wanting to settle out of court at all though  ?  ...  what benefit would that be to them if they were convinced Amaral had libeled  them and they would win in court with  justice being  be served  ?

[Lola]

Can't find latest thread that I replied to. ?????

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1119.msg31715#msg31715