Are the McCanns proceeding with their libel action against Amaral ?

[gilet]

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As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action.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  ?

Personally I would not have thought the first move came from the McCanns. I think there is a stage 0 before those postulated by Chinagirl. I suspect that it is possible that Amaral offered a deal and the McCanns simply decided to consider it.  I don't think Chinagirl's first stage is likely. I think it more likely that they were responding to an Amaral offer simply to see what it might be.

But this is pure speculation and I have no evidence for such a claim.

As there is nothing but reports emanating from Portuguese media connected to Amaral's lawyer and other friends I seriously doubt we will ever know what actually happened.

[Luz]

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.

You certainly have talent to write "novels"....but I'm afraid you got it wrong.
Mr. Amaral never wanted an agreement out of court, in fact he has been waiting anxiously for the trial - that's why the answer was so quick.

And you can't just withdraw from a case, there are legal consequences and quite grave as it would be considered as abusing the legal system. Furthermore, although I didn't have a chance to confirm, but Amaral said on several occasions that he was contersuing and if so, even if Mr. and Mrs McCann wished to withdraw they would have to respond for Mr. Amaral's allegations.

By the way, in Portugal every judicial process (criminal or "civil") is under the "secrecy of law" but the Trial sessions are public (except when it involves children or very intimate/delicate matters)  and that's why people were able to twit on the last trial.

[gilet]

Thank you for your comments particularly about judicial secrecy. I thought that would be the case regarding that.

Your comment about withdrawing from the case is also interesting. I can see that there could be certain repercussions if you made false claims.

Those two claims of yours are general knowledge which a Portuguese person (I assume you are such) might have.

But as for your claims regarding Mr Amaral's actions I will have to presume they are mere speculation unless you can offer some evidence to back them up.  It could be said that you are simply a good story teller too and we simply have to take your word as we do with other story tellers? Or do you have some evidence you can offer us?

One thing that does not ring true about your story is that it seems to have been Mr Amaral delaying the trial in the past. Not a sign of someone desperate to get to court as you suggest.

[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.

You certainly have talent to write "novels"....but I'm afraid you got it wrong.
Mr. Amaral never wanted an agreement out of court, in fact he has been waiting anxiously for the trial - that's why the answer was so quick.

And you can't just withdraw from a case, there are legal consequences and quite grave as it would be considered as abusing the legal system.   Furthermore, although I didn't have a chance to confirm, but Amaral said on several occasions that he was contersuing and if so, even if Mr. and Mrs McCann wished to withdraw they would have to respond for Mr. Amaral's allegations.

By the way, in Portugal every judicial process (criminal or "civil") is under the "secrecy of law" but the Trial sessions are public (except when it involves children or very intimate/delicate matters)  and that's why people were able to twit on the last trial.

BIB  ...  I hadn't thought of that Luz,  but it makes perfect sense

Folk can't just go round suing others and freezing their funds and assets for years  ...  and then pulling out at the eleventh hour, on the eve of a trial

That would have to be addressed in law,  surely ?

 

[Chinagirl]

Anything any of us write on this particular aspect of the case has to be speculation, as no statements have been issued by either side.  I was merely offering a possibility - not writing a "novel!"

I do recall Amaral's threats to counter-sue.  This doesn't appear to have happened.  He wouldn't have to wait for the outcome of the McCann's action before proceeding with his own action.

Gilet has made a valid point about previous delays being caused by Amaral, which do not seem to be the actions of someone keen to present his defence.

[debunker]

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  ?

THe McCanns legal cases have each had the intention to stop furtherdefamation. For instance, their intention with Tony Bennett was to stop further libel rather than toimpoverish or imprison him; they appealled to the judge not to jail him.

[Chinagirl]

Good point, Debunker.

[faithlilly]

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.

If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.

[Eleanor]

It has been suggested that Goncalo Amaral was keen to see the result of Mr. Bennett's Trial before facing his own.  Likewise Mr. Bennett.
In fact they have both been attempting to delay their own Trials alternately.  This could be because they have hoped that the result of one might influence the other, presuming that a result was in their favour.

I do not know if this is true, or even if a ruling in one country could influence another. 

[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.

If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.

If The McCanns settle in favour of Goncalo Amaral at their request, it will have the same negative effect.

[faithlilly]

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.

If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.

If The McCanns settle in favour of Goncalo Amaral at their request, it will have the same negative effect.

It would depend on the terms of that settlement.

[Luz]

I don't think Mr. Amaral was waiting for anything from the UK (i.e. Mr. Bennett's case).

Just as a curiosity check this:
from Correio da Manhã newspaper, 18th February, 2013  [urlhttp://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pais-de-maddie-e-goncalo-amaral-falham-acordo][/url]:
«Fonte da defesa disse esta segunda-feira à agência Lusa que "as partes não chegaram a acordo" e que já pediu "a reativação da instância" na 1.ª Vara Cível de Lisboa, que terá agora de marcar nova data para o início do julgamento.»

Raw translation: A source from the defense told Lusa Agency (not a particular newspaper, but a national news agency) that the parts didn't reach an agreement and they have already demanded a "reactivation of the case" in the 1st Vara Cível de Lisboa (a Lisbon Court) that will have to schedule a new date for the beginning of the trial.

[Eleanor]

The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they?  The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.

[debunker]

The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they?  The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.

THis is so reflective of Anti thinking- when a settlement is suggested it indicates that the McCanns are running away, but when no settlement is reached, that does not (to the [ censored word]) indicate the determination of the McCanns to progress their case.

SAme mindset as arguido equals suspect, dearguidofication does not man that they are not suspects.

EIther Or in each case!

[icabodcrane]

The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they?  The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.

I believe that when the trial was called off at the last minute, a period of six months was allowed in order for the parties to negotiate a sttlement out of court

In that case, I suppose it might be that the McCanns,  presuming it was they who asked for the trial to be halted,  offered terms to Amaral,  who rejected them

There remains the possibility, does there not  (  given the six month window )  that they may continue negotiations until the terms they offer finally meet with Amaral's demands  ?