The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial trial now set for September 2013

[ferryman]

September looms reasonably large.

Any news of a new date, yet?

[Rachel Granada]

Hiya ferryman, I have been watching this keenly also.  Haven't heard anything as yet,  but will report back if I do.  Something Tells Me (as Cilla Black once said....) that there will be no such trial.  IMO Amaral is desperate to settle.  Watch this space. 

[ferryman]

Many thanks Rachel.

[Rachel Granada]

Many thanks Rachel.

Okey cokey no probs.  The way I see it is this... he has to defend his pathetic fridge theory, his clear insinuations in his book that Kate and Gerry McCann were culpable.  Based on what?  Nada.

This libel case is not about money for Kate and Gerry - they just want him to stop.

And I'd love if it Robert Murat launched proceedings over the foul smears in Amaral's book....

[ferryman]

Okey cokey no probs.  The way I see it is this... he has to defend his pathetic fridge theory, his clear insinuations in his book that Kate and Gerry McCann were culpable.  Based on what?  Nada.

This libel case is not about money for Kate and Gerry - they just want him to stop.

And I'd love if it Robert Murat launched proceedings over the foul smears in Amaral's book....

They want him to stop, certainly.

But I think they would also like a clear and unequivocal court judgment that Amaral's book is a work of libel and the certainty that it will not again see light of day ...

And yes, I agree that the money is secondary ...

[Lyall]

Can you list any lies in the book? Does he mention a fridge in it?

[ferryman]

Can you list any lies in the book? Does he mention a fridge in it?

He lied about Harrison's role in the investigation.

If he told the truth about Kate sacking a liaison officer, it's not recorded in the files.

We can't say certainly, because we don't see Prior's report, but it seems highly unlikely that Amaral contradicted Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, then ordered Prior to phone the FSS and berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest. 

I don't know what evidence there is that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral was to be removed from the investigation.

There's no evidence Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat as the man she saw.

Amaral says the Smiths saw Gerry; the final PJ report, that at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant.

I've barely scratched the surface ...

[Lyall]

I agree about the Tanner in the van incident, but I don't see the others as lies. It's a book, not an official document - it's more like a prosecutor's opening speech in a trial, presenting his or her case.

But I'm not an expert in Portuguese law, and I expect none of us are.

[ferryman]

I would say Amaral's conclusion is the big one; the very antithesis of the final PJ report and the report of the prosecutors. 

[Rachel Granada]

I agree about the Tanner in the van incident, but I don't see the others as lies. It's a book, not an official document - it's more like a prosecutor's opening speech in a trial, presenting his or her case.

But I'm not an expert in Portuguese law, and I expect none of us are.

It is riddled with lies, as ferryman has set out above.  And then there is creeping insinuation - that he had met and observed the McCanns, when that is patently not true. 

I am looking forward to this disgrace to the PJ uniform finally getting his come-uppance.

[Lyall]

I would say Amaral's conclusion is the big one; the very antithesis of the final PJ report and the report of the prosecutors.

I think that's your interpretation of the 2008 documents. It's not everybody's.

The child is still missing five years later, and no evidence in the public domain rules GA's theory out. In the US I think that would be the crucial fact taken into account by the courts.

But I'm not an expert in US law either. Just my opinion. I know it's not as simple as you seem to be making out though - Portuguese law is different to UK law. It is more like US law.

[ferryman]

and no evidence in the public domain rules GA's theory out.

According to Amaral, the McCanns drove Madeleine's body somewhere in the Renault.

Eddie reacted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car.

That's recorded in the files.

[Rachel Granada]

and no evidence in the public domain rules GA's theory out.

According to Amaral, the McCanns drove Madeleine's body somewhere in the Renault.

Eddie reacted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car.

That's recorded in the files.

    

[Lyall]

The child is still missing. That's the crucial point. In the US her rights would be valued more than those of her parents. Perhaps also in Europe (though the book would stand no chance in the UK I think we all agree).

[ferryman]

The child is still missing. That's the crucial point. In the US her rights would be valued more than those of her parents. Perhaps also in Europe (though the book would stand no chance in the UK I think we all agree).

In what sense does a book of dubious veracity implicating Kate and Gerry in Madeleine's (assumed, but not proved) demise further Madeleine's best interests?