Goncalo Amaral.

[The General]

Hes limited to what he can say otherwise he may well find himself back in court...I dont expect you to understand or agree with that. He hasn't repeated his crackpot theory for some time now.. have you noticed how with CB evidence is important...but as regards the McCanns its considerecd incidental

No.

[G-Unit]

My original point was that Sandra "woke up" many years before Netflix was even a twinkle in anyone's eye.

Or if, as those commentating suspect, she and RTP had attracted the attention of the McCann's lawyers.

[Angelo222]

Hes limited to what he can say otherwise he may well find himself back in court...I dont expect you to understand or agree with that. He hasn't repeated his crackpot theory for some time now.. have you noticed how with CB evidence is important...but as regards the McCanns its considerecd incidental

Maybe you didn't notice but Amaral successfully defended against the previous McCann libel action and gained huge publicity and support in doing so?

[G-Unit]

Hes limited to what he can say otherwise he may well find himself back in court...I dont expect you to understand or agree with that. He hasn't repeated his crackpot theory for some time now.. have you noticed how with CB evidence is important...but as regards the McCanns its considerecd incidental

I have seen no evidence of Amaral being constrained by fear of the courts. Is that your wishful thinking? There may be more evidence than the Germans are sharing, but at the moment there's less than the PJ had against the McCanns. It was possible to prove that they entered 5A, for a start.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe you didn't notice but Amaral successfully defended against the previous McCann libel action and gained huge publicity and support in doing so?

Its gone to the ECHR....If the ECHR rule against portugal then anything further amaral says can be the subject of a new case . Most posters dont seem to understand this. Portugal has  avery pooor record at the ECHR

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no evidence of Amaral being constrained by fear of the courts. Is that your wishful thinking? There may be more evidence than the Germans are sharing, but at the moment there's less than the PJ had against the McCanns. It was possible to prove that they entered 5A, for a start.

I have seen evidence. in his last interview amaral dint mention his theory...he criticised the childcare...he criticised Tannner...dont you remember disussing it then...perhaps you've forgotten

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no evidence of Amaral being constrained by fear of the courts. Is that your wishful thinking? There may be more evidence than the Germans are sharing, but at the moment there's less than the PJ had against the McCanns. It was possible to prove that they entered 5A, for a start.

I would say theres more against Breukner. pedro da Carmo said there is no evidence aginst the McCanns . what evidence do you think there is...i dont see any real evidence.

[Wonderfulspam]

I would say theres more against Breukner. pedro da Carmo said there is no evidence aginst the McCanns . what evidence do you think there is...i dont see any real evidence.

Martin Smiths statement is evidence, & it's also real, by way of the fact that it definitely exists.

You might not like that, & neither does Pedro for some reason. But it's still evidence.

What's this real evidence against Brueckner?

That he used a mobile phone?.............So did the McCanns.

[Mr Gray]

Martin Smiths statement is evidence, & it's also real, by way of the fact that it definitely exists.

You might not like that, & neither does Pedro for some reason. But it's still evidence.

What's this real evidence against Brueckner?

That he used a mobile phone?.............So did the McCanns.

It might be evidence but its very weak unreliable evidence. There is evidence Gerry was at the tapas at that time.

I wont bother discussing thew evidence against Breukner...we can just wait and see.

[G-Unit]

Its gone to the ECHR....If the ECHR rule against portugal then anything further amaral says can be the subject of a new case . Most posters dont seem to understand this. Portugal has  avery pooor record at the ECHR

I think most posters understand that you are guessing.

[Wonderfulspam]

It might be evidence but its very weak unreliable evidence. There is evidence Gerry was at the tapas at that time.

I wont bother discussing thew evidence against Breukner...we can just wait and see.

There's also evidence the alarm wasn't raised at the time claimed by the McCanns, which means Gerry might not have been at the tapas at the time.

And there's no point discussing the evidence against Brueckner, because there isn't any.

[Mr Gray]

I think most posters understand that you are guessing.

What you think is of no consequence. I  know exactly what i'm talking about and said this before it was reported that the McCanns might take amaral to court again. Its quite simple.

[G-Unit]

What you think is of no consequence. I  know exactly what i'm talking about and said this before it was reported that the McCanns might take amaral to court again. Its quite simple.

Might being the operative word, of course.

[Mr Gray]

I think most posters understand that you are guessing.

I'll explain it simply. The SC ruling covers any statements made prior to the writ being taken out. The SC went to great lengths to show they complied with ECHR law. If the ECHR rule amarals statements were libellous ....then the M
McCanns can go back to the portuguese court armed with that ruling for any statements made after the issue of the first writ.  That is not guesswork its logic.

[Mr Gray]

Might being the operative word, of course.

So its considered a possibility.