UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: muratfan on April 22, 2013, 01:38:20 AM
-
He claimed he could produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...
Well 4 years later ...still waiting 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
-
He claimed he cold produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...
Well 4 years later ...still waiting 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Did he ?
I thought he believed that Madeleine died as the result of an accident that occured when the McCanns were absent
Can you bring us the quote where he said the McCanns 'killed' their daughter, and he could prove it ?
-
Shall we say involved then, for arguments sake, as I am about to go to bed soon.
You mean the fridge, or the church, or the beach, or the incinerator...maybe his theory on the scenic wheel well (which they don't have)
Where is his ace then
-
Play nicely, Luz.
-
thats why its called an ace, you dont get to see it till the end, no? Sleep well then MF!
-
Muratfan,
my darling (if you call me love I'm entitled to ), you don't expect Mr. Amaral to reveal anything before the trial that he is waiting for, do you?
You may not like him, but you have to acknowledge that he is intelligent, and not only that, he is a smart ass of a cop with more than 27 years dealing with criminals.
Do you think that he caught as many criminals as he has by reveling his data to smartasses like you?!
Grow up sweettty, and now brush your teeth put your jemmies and go to bed.
(Edited: Sorry, the corrector assumed you really needed a bath before bed, not my fault "à la Mcann")
-
And just why would he not reveal something of such relevance to the case as soon as possible?
Is there no crime of "withholding evidence" in Portugal? Here you can receive very serious punishment by our courts for holding back evidence from the police. As an ordinary citizen surely it is Amaral's duty to give whatever evidence he has to the police as soon as he can?
Or does he not believe in duty, but just in saving evidence for his own trial to save his own neck?
-
Nothing to do with withholding evidence is it? more to do wih divulging it in public! And we all know what happened last time the mccanns were in court when things were divulged in public! Gerry got a hernia and went home!
kate never had a dream
Pj files say yes, its redorded which makes you wonder why he made a song and dance about it
-
And just why would he not reveal something of such relevance to the case as soon as possible?
Is there no crime of "withholding evidence" in Portugal? Here you can receive very serious punishment by our courts for holding back evidence from the police. As an ordinary citizen surely it is Amaral's duty to give whatever evidence he has to the police as soon as he can?
Or does he not believe in duty, but just in saving evidence for his own trial to save his own neck?
To the likes of you?! What for?
You don't know what he has done with the information he has and that's what has been consuming you lot, hasn't it?! It's so funny to see you twist like little "lombrigas".
You may twist but you will not get the slightest shread of info.
Wait patiently and enjoy.
-
Please have some respect and read the posts you are replying to.
There is nothing in my post which suggests Amaral should reveal anything to me and you would know that if you bothered to read.
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed. It is his duty as a citizen to report evidence about a crime to the police (if he has any).
Your post is a hysterical rant based on nothing at all that I posted.
-
Please have some respect and read the posts you are replying to.
There is nothing in my post which suggests Amaral should reveal anything to me and you would know that if you bothered to read.
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed. It is his duty as a citizen to report evidence about a crime to the police (if he has any).
Your post is a hysterical rant based on nothing at all that I posted.
pls dont misquote me, i never said he held evidence back, as you pontificate, read the posts properly
-
Nothing to do with withholding evidence is it? more to do wih divulging it in public! And we all know what happened last time the mccanns were in court when things were divulged in public! Gerry got a hernia and went home!
kate never had a dream
Pj files say yes, its redorded which makes you wonder why he made a song and dance about it
Your suggestion that he is "holding it to the end" is clearly something to do with withholding evidence. Perhaps you should remember what you have just posted before because it makes you look foolish when you mess up like that.
As for a dream, what has that got to do with this thread? Are you trying to distract this thread now?
-
Please have some respect and read the posts you are replying to.
There is nothing in my post which suggests Amaral should reveal anything to me and you would know that if you bothered to read.
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed. It is his duty as a citizen to report evidence about a crime to the police (if he has any).
Your post is a hysterical rant based on nothing at all that I posted.
pls dont misquote me, i never said he held evidence back, as you pontificate, read the posts properly
I did not even quote you, never mind misquote you.
What I accurately reported you as implying was that Amaral was holding his evidence till the end and therefore not revealing it even to the police which it is his duty to do.
Careful reading does pay dividends when you are seeking the truth.
-
Nothing to do with withholding evidence is it? more to do wih divulging it in public! And we all know what happened last time the mccanns were in court when things were divulged in public! Gerry got a hernia and went home!
kate never had a dream
Pj files say yes, its redorded which makes you wonder why he made a song and dance about it
Your suggestion that he is "holding it to the end" is clearly something to do with withholding evidence. Perhaps you should remember what you have just posted before because it makes you look foolish when you mess up like that.
As for a dream, what has that got to do with this thread? Are you trying to distract this thread now?
All I can say is learn to read
I am sure you are not that stupid to understand what I posted, then again, if you have to ask questions, maybe
Holding an ace does not mean evidenxe is withheld
Secondly my point with the dream example was that evidence was always there but never made public, no ones ace here, just an example that something which is part of evidence can come out at any time, now do you see? Perhaps you can offer a reason why gerry bust a gut to say it was untrue when its recorded in the files, hmmm
-
Please have some respect and read the posts you are replying to.
There is nothing in my post which suggests Amaral should reveal anything to me and you would know that if you bothered to read.
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed. It is his duty as a citizen to report evidence about a crime to the police (if he has any).
Your post is a hysterical rant based on nothing at all that I posted.
pls dont misquote me, i never said he held evidence back, as you pontificate, read the posts properly
I did not even quote you, never mind misquote you.
What I accurately reported you as implying was that Amaral was holding his evidence till the end and therefore not revealing it even to the police which it is his duty to do.
Careful reading does pay dividends when you are seeking the truth.
your post suggested that I said amaral had evidence that he never reported to the police, so therefore, yes, it was a misquote of what i posted earlier on in the thread, which WAS, not that he is withholdong evidence but that he is not TALKING about in in public,streugh like getting blood out of a stone
Your post
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed
-
Please have some respect and read the posts you are replying to.
There is nothing in my post which suggests Amaral should reveal anything to me and you would know that if you bothered to read.
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed. It is his duty as a citizen to report evidence about a crime to the police (if he has any).
Your post is a hysterical rant based on nothing at all that I posted.
pls dont misquote me, i never said he held evidence back, as you pontificate, read the posts properly
I did not even quote you, never mind misquote you.
What I accurately reported you as implying was that Amaral was holding his evidence till the end and therefore not revealing it even to the police which it is his duty to do.
Careful reading does pay dividends when you are seeking the truth.
your post suggested that I said amaral had evidence that he never reported to the police, so therefore, yes, it was a misquote of what i posted earlier on in the thread, which WAS, not that he is withholdong evidence but that he is not TALKING about in in public,streugh like getting blood out of a stone
Your post
My post made it very clear that he should give his evidence to the police not hold it to the end as Redblossom claimed
As I never even quoted you, I cannot have (as you have now claimed twice) misquoted you.
Your post said that aces were for holding to the end, and the clear implication was that this is what Amaral is doing.
I therefore correctly stated that such a move would be wrong as withholding evidence "to the end" is wrong. It is wrong. I stand by what I posted.
-
You didnt quote my exact words but commented on what you thought they meant, which was wong on your part
i never ONCE suggested Mr Amaral had evidence which he hid or was not part of the investigation as revealed in the files
I only suggested that he might state certain things on public FROM the investigation
-
You said that aces were to be held back till the end.
There was a clear implication that you were claiming that was what Amaral was doing.
I repeat. I stand by what I said and in no way did I misquote or misinterpret your claim.
-
You said that aces were to be held back till the end.
There was a clear implication that you were claiming that was what Amaral was doing.
I repeat. I stand by what I said and in no way did I misquote or misinterpret your claim.
Just your interpretation of what an ace is as was mine must an interpretation, nothing less nothng more
-
No, it was not my interpretation of what an ace is.
It was your statement that an ace is to be held to the end.
And as we were discussing Amaral's ace then it was perfectly clear that you were suggesting that was what he is doing.
And that is simply wrong.
-
No, it was not my interpretation of what an ace is.
It was your statement that an ace is to be held to the end.
And as we were discussing Amaral's ace then it was perfectly clear that you were suggesting that was what he is doing.
And that is simply wrong.
Nope, no evidence that any evidence is being concealed by him, just your interpretation, an ace is a card to be played, could be anything, and you dont know
-
It wasn't my interpretation though was it?
It was you who said he was holding it to the end.
And the more you claim it was me the more stupid you look.
Its interesting discovering that you really have no argument.
The plain fact is that he is withholding this ace/evidence and should not be doing so.
-
It wasn't my interpretation though was it?
It was you who said he was holding it to the end.
And the more you claim it was me the more stupid you look.
Its interesting discovering that you really have no argument.
The plain fact is that he is withholding this ace/evidence and should not be doing so.
its YOUR interpetration of what I said still, sigh, fill your boots
-
pls dont misquote me, i never said he held evidence back, as you pontificate, read the posts properly
Red Blossom
thats why its called an ace, you dont get to see it till the end,
Red Blossom
-
Did Amaral ever say he has an Ace? Is this another Forum Myth to give the detractor "Hope?'
Anyone got a link, or was it just made up, like a lot of other things?
-
It's ridiculous to suggest he's got an Ace if he hasn't got one. And even more ridiculous to suggest that he is keeping it to himself, to be revealed during The Libel Trial, like one of them TV Lawyers.
Nope, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he ain't that stupid.
-
I think the "ace" (probably an English idiom without an exact equivalent in Portuguese) stemmed from Amaral's rhetoric, Soon, very soon, the world will know the TRUTH (or words to that effect).
That certainly implied revelations to come that is probably the provenance of the concept of the "ace".
-
I think the "ace" (probably an English idiom without an exact equivalent in Portuguese) stemmed from Amaral's rhetoric, Soon, very soon, the world will know the TRUTH (or words to that effect).
That certainly implied revelations to come that is probably the provenance of the concept of the "ace".
Well, he was certainly right about that. The World does now know a lot of things about him that I bet he wishes they didn't. Lots of stuff that happened long before The McCanns ever considered going to Portugal.
And I bet he wishes he had never written his wretched book.
-
I don't know about having 'an Ace to play' in the up-coming libel trial, but I suppose there is a possibility that hitherto unknown information, damaging to the McCanns, might be revealed
It occured to me on another thread that the McCanns were completely unaware of the existance of Lee Rainbow's report, for instance
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report ... and I recall Gerry subsequently appearing flustered outside the court room
The Rainbow report had been kept confidential, and I wonder if that is because it was part of the British police evidence that the McCanns were denied access to when they applied for it in court
It is certainly within the realms of possibility that other damaging evidence is contained in those British police files that the McCanns have not been allowed to see ... which may, yet, emerge if their legal action against Amaral goes ahead
-
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report
No rebuttal was needed. Rainbow's report didn't contain what Cabrita claimed.
-
I don't know about having 'an Ace to play' in the up-coming libel trial, but I suppose there is a possibility that hitherto unknown information, damaging to the McCanns, might be revealed
It occured to me on another thread that the McCanns were completely unaware of the existance of Lee Rainbow's report, for instance
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report ... and I recall Gerry subsequently appearing flustered outside the court room
The Rainbow report had been kept confidential, and I wonder if that is because it was part of the British police evidence that the McCanns were denied access to when they applied for it in court
It is certainly within the realms of possibility that other damaging evidence is contained in those British police files that the McCanns have not been allowed to see ... which may, yet, emerge if their legal action against Amaral goes ahead
So how did Amaral and his Lawyers get their hands on this supposedly damaging stuff? This is just plain ridiculous. Unless Amaral with held evidence while he was in charge of The Case.
-
I don't know about having 'an Ace to play' in the up-coming libel trial, but I suppose there is a possibility that hitherto unknown information, damaging to the McCanns, might be revealed
It occured to me on another thread that the McCanns were completely unaware of the existance of Lee Rainbow's report, for instance
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report ... and I recall Gerry subsequently appearing flustered outside the court room
The Rainbow report had been kept confidential, and I wonder if that is because it was part of the British police evidence that the McCanns were denied access to when they applied for it in court
It is certainly within the realms of possibility that other damaging evidence is contained in those British police files that the McCanns have not been allowed to see ... which may, yet, emerge if their legal action against Amaral goes ahead
So how did Amaral and his Lawyers get their hands on this supposedly damaging stuff? This is just plain ridiculous. Unless Amaral with held evidence while he was in charge of The Case.
The McCanns took the British police to court in order to get access to the information contained in their files
Kate McCann says in her book that she was shocked by the force of the British police's opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny them access to the files
There is, therefore, much in the British police files that the McCanns have never seen ... but of which Amaral has knowledge
How he and his lawyers were abe to produce the Rainbow report ( or copy of it ) in court, I do not know
-
I don't know about having 'an Ace to play' in the up-coming libel trial, but I suppose there is a possibility that hitherto unknown information, damaging to the McCanns, might be revealed
It occured to me on another thread that the McCanns were completely unaware of the existance of Lee Rainbow's report, for instance
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report ... and I recall Gerry subsequently appearing flustered outside the court room
The Rainbow report had been kept confidential, and I wonder if that is because it was part of the British police evidence that the McCanns were denied access to when they applied for it in court
It is certainly within the realms of possibility that other damaging evidence is contained in those British police files that the McCanns have not been allowed to see ... which may, yet, emerge if their legal action against Amaral goes ahead
So how did Amaral and his Lawyers get their hands on this supposedly damaging stuff? This is just plain ridiculous. Unless Amaral with held evidence while he was in charge of The Case.
The McCanns took the British police to court in order to get access to the information contained in their files
Kate McCann says in her book that she was shocked by the force of the British police's opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny them access to the files
There is, therefore, much in the British police files that the McCanns have never seen ... but of which Amaral has knowledge
How he and his lawyers were abe to produce the Rainbow report ( or copy of it ) in court, I do not know
The McCanns went to court to get access to some of the information, which they were given.
The Rainbow Report was never that important and did not contain undisclosed evidence.
I don't know how Amaral obtained certain things, other than from someone leaking it after he was sacked.
-
Kate McCann says in her book that she was shocked by the force of the British police's opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny them access to the files
There is, therefore, much in the British police files that the McCanns have never seen ... but of which Amaral has knowledge
That is skewed.
What is true is that the McCanns asked for certain information while they were still arguidos which they were denied. I admit that even I thought that (the request of the McCanns) a tad forward at that juncture.
What was true at that juncture is not remotely true since.
I think it highly likely that the McCanns have seen more than we've seen on line and beyond doubt what they have will be much better translated than much of what we see on line.
I've no clue whether the McCanns have Harrison's report, but I confidently predict it doesn't contain any unpleasant surprises except, possibly, for Amaral, who appeared to believe he had 'corrected' Harrison on interpretation of the forensic results from the car ...
We know from Kate's book that Bob Small expected the PJ to be in for a rude awakening when the files were released, but we don't see his report on-line, either.
No unpleasant surprises, except possibly for Amaral, there, either.
-
I don't know about having 'an Ace to play' in the up-coming libel trial, but I suppose there is a possibility that hitherto unknown information, damaging to the McCanns, might be revealed
It occured to me on another thread that the McCanns were completely unaware of the existance of Lee Rainbow's report, for instance
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report ... and I recall Gerry subsequently appearing flustered outside the court room
The Rainbow report had been kept confidential, and I wonder if that is because it was part of the British police evidence that the McCanns were denied access to when they applied for it in court
It is certainly within the realms of possibility that other damaging evidence is contained in those British police files that the McCanns have not been allowed to see ... which may, yet, emerge if their legal action against Amaral goes ahead
So how did Amaral and his Lawyers get their hands on this supposedly damaging stuff? This is just plain ridiculous. Unless Amaral with held evidence while he was in charge of The Case.
The McCanns took the British police to court in order to get access to the information contained in their files
Kate McCann says in her book that she was shocked by the force of the British police's opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny them access to the files
There is, therefore, much in the British police files that the McCanns have never seen ... but of which Amaral has knowledge
How he and his lawyers were abe to produce the Rainbow report ( or copy of it ) in court, I do not know
The McCanns went to court to get access to some of the information, which they were given.
The Rainbow Report was never that important and did not contain undisclosed evidence.
I don't know how Amaral obtained certain things, other than from someone leaking it after he was sacked.
That is incorrect Eleanor
The McCanns took the British police to court to get hold of all the files
An extract from Kate's book :
"Given the extreme opposition we faced, we realized this was a battle we weren't going to win. Reluctantly, we made a tactical decision to accept a smaller amount of information. Having to withdraw was quite galling, especially as the eighty one items disclosed to us included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place"
The McCanns, unlike Amaral, have no knowledge of what is in those British police files
-
The McCanns, unlike Amaral, have no knowledge of what is in those British police files
(Now) untrue, but even if it were true, the prosecutors have read everything and can find no basis for any supposition that the McCanns or their friends committed any crime by Portuguese law.
-
Kate McCann says in her book that she was shocked by the force of the British police's opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny them access to the files
There is, therefore, much in the British police files that the McCanns have never seen ... but of which Amaral has knowledge
That is skewed.
What is true is that the McCanns asked for certain information while they were still arguidos which they were denied. I admit that even I thought that (the request of the McCanns) a tad forward at that juncture.
What was true at that juncture is not remotely true since.
I think it highly likely that the McCanns have seen more than we've seen on line and beyond doubt what they have will be much better translated than much of what we see on line.
I've no clue whether the McCanns have Harrison's report, but I confidently predict it doesn't contain any unpleasant surprises except, possibly, for Amaral, who appeared to believe he had 'corrected' Harrison on interpretation of the forensic results from the car ...
We know from Kate's book that Bob Small expected the PJ to be in for a rude awakening when the files were released, but we don't see his report on-line, either.
No unpleasant surprises, except possibly for Amaral, there, either.
There is no evidence to suggest the McCanns were given access to the British police files after their Arguido status was lifted
Conversely though, there is evidence that the McCanns relationship with Leicester police remains distant
In her book, Kate says the their connection with Leicester police has dwindled since the Autumn of 2007, which makes her sad
She adds that the Leicester Force still takes the line that they'll pass on any relevent information to the Portuguese authorities. Kate says that while that is all that is legally expected of them, she'd hoped for so much more
Kate also says this in her book :
"Crucially, we do not have access to all of the information that has come into the inquiry. The Portuguese authorities possess a great deal of material that was not included in the police file released into the public domain. The British police, too, hold information we do not have"
I realize that Kate's book was published some time ago, but I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest the things she speaks about here have changed since then
-
Their lawyer was clearly unprepared and offered no rebuttal to the claims made in court by Amaral's lawyer regarding Rainbow's report
No rebuttal was needed. Rainbow's report didn't contain what Cabrita claimed.
Exactly! I wonder did Cabrita learn from Bennett or was it the other way round?
-
"Crucially, we do not have access to all of the information that has come into the inquiry. The Portuguese authorities possess a great deal of material that was not included in the police file released into the public domain. The British police, too, hold information we do not have"
I suspect you may have the Portuguese copy of Kate's book? In which case the numbering will be different from the British.
But at least, what chapter does that extract come from, please?
-
"Crucially, we do not have access to all of the information that has come into the inquiry. The Portuguese authorities possess a great deal of material that was not included in the police file released into the public domain. The British police, too, hold information we do not have"
I suspect you may have the Portuguese copy of Kate's book? In which case the numbering will be different from the British.
But at least, what chapter does that extract come from, please?
Portuguese copy ? ... don't think so, I bought it from WHSmith's in the high street ( on discount )
The direct quote I gave from Kate ( vebatim ) is on page 367 in the chapter 'Adapting To Our New Life'
-
If Amaral has an "ace" it can surely only relate to anything that pertains to before early Oct 2007 when he was taken off the case? And if so, any such "ace" would have surely been superseded by the PT AG's report of july 2008 in the archiving despatch?
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, we shall see soon
Indeed. We shall see soon who has been telling the truth.
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, we shall see soon
Indeed. We shall see soon who has been telling the truth.
mr Amaral was vindicated last time as doing so, so where does that leave the libel trial? It isnt based on facts that writ but allegations which cant be proved, slam dunk not going anywhere IMO, last word
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
That would be a PR disaster
If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral
That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine
If Amaral doesn't go for it, however, they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest
How they'd spin that, though, I can't imagine
-
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURAT+MOTHER'S+FURY%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Shocked+Jenny+says+Maddie+suspect+was...-a0166903584
MURAT MOTHER'S FURY; EXCLUSIVE: Shocked Jenny says Maddie suspect was with her all the time My son never changed his alibi. He is a scapegoat for police failings.
Byline: RACHAEL BLETCHLY in Praia da Luz
THE mother of Maddie suspect Robert Murat last night broke her silence to blast claims her son had changed his alibi over the tot's abduction.
And she is growing increasingly concerned at the Portuguese police handling of the hunt for the lost four-year-old.
Sources on the Algarve claim Murat, 33, told cops he was with his girlfriend at the time Madeleine McCann was seized 12 weeks ago.
They allege he later switched stories and said he had been with his mum Jenny.
But furious Jenny, 71, told relatives: "My son has NEVER changed his alibi.
"He has ALWAYS maintained he was with me when Madeleine went missing and he has never told police anything else. It is absolute nonsense what is being said.
"Robert is being made a scapegoat for the police failings in finding out what happened to Madeleine. It is yet another example of what Robert has said being twisted and distorted to make him look bad" The anguished pensioner insists her son is "100 per cent innocent".
And she revealed she had unearthed a new line of inquiry when she and a friend reported a gang of suspicious strangers to police - days before she knew her son was in the frame for the shocking crime.
But Jenny claimed the lead - centred on a house less than two miles from where Madeleine was grabbed - was IGNORED for weeks by detectives.
And she accused them of not acting on it urgently because Murat is their only suspect and she is his only alibi.
Jenny told a family member: "I know my son had nothing to do with this and I can't understand why people say they saw him near the McCanns' apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.
"He was with me all night. He didn't go out. That is the truth.
"Robert has never changed his alibi - it's utter nonsense.
"We both have told the police exactly the same thing and that's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it seems no one wants to believe what I'm saying.
"They think because I'm Robert's mum I must be covering up for him.
"That's why they poo-pooed my suspicions about the strangers I reported, even though someone else shared my concerns."
Jenny added: "I pray Madeleine is found soon - for her parents' sake and for Robert's.
"It's the fairytale we dream of because only then will he be able to clear his name.
"But I can't help thinking if the time and effort focused on damning my son had been put into searching for Maddie, we might have her back by now."
Widow Jenny is banned by Portuguese secrecy laws from talking directly about the police inquiry into Maddie's disappearance from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz on May 3.
But she and her family were incensed by reports Murat's alibi has been "shattered" by a string of witnesses.
They include holidaymaking pals Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachel Oldfield, who confronted property developer Murat at a police station meeting two weeks ago.
The trio - friends of Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate - claimed they saw Murat "peeking" into the apartment the night the little girl vanished. They said they recognised his "dodgy" right eye - caused by a detached retina - despite poor street lighting in the area at the time.
But Jenny insists her son did NOT leave their house 100 yards from the apartment where Madeleine had been sleeping with two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie while their parents ate out at a nearby restaurant.
Her sister-in-law Sally Eveleigh, 56, told The People: "Jenny feels terribly frustrated no one will accept her word for this. She says she IS the alibi - so how can it be shattered?
"She and Robert remember hearing a police siren go past at some point that night. But it wasn't enough to make them go out to see what was happening and they went to bed.
"I suppose the implication is Rob snuck out later - but that's not true.
"The first they knew about it was when a friend rang in the morning and told them to turn on the TV news."
As a huge manhunt was launched for the kidnapper, Jenny remembered seeing three strangers - a couple in their 30s and a woman in her 50s - at a large isolated house nearby.
She had spotted the building - called Casa Ao Pescareza - while walking her dog along a coastal path.
Sally said: "Jenny was intrigued because they looked like gipsies or travellers and were driving a clapped-out old red car with a British number plate. They looked out of place in this grand house with its big drive and swimming pool.
"But they also seemed to have a string of visitors - men in smart suits driving plush new cars like Mercedes.
"On one occasion the older woman told Jenny they always came to Luz in summer and were staying four months.
"She spoke perfect English but Jenny thought she had a French or possibly Middle-Eastern accent.
"Then two days after Maddie vanished Jenny was walking down that way again and noticed the house was shut up and deserted.
"There was no sign of the trio after that - even though they had said they would be there all summer."
Jenny jotted her recollections on a piece of paper which was passed to police.
She also gave them the name of a pal who had shared her suspicions about the "odd" tenants.
The People, which has seen Jenny's notes, has learnt cops did not contact the friend for two months.
Sally said: "People will probably say that Jenny is clutching at straws.
"But she reported it to police a couple of days after Madeleine vanished and more than a week before anyone knew Robert would be questioned."
Divorced Murat - whose four-year-old daughter Sofia is the image of Madeleine - is aware his mother told cops about her suspicions.
But he is banned from discussing the investigation while a suspect.
DNA tests are said to have shown he was not the stranger whose genetic traces were found in the McCanns' flat.
But Murat - who is dating German Michaela Walczuch - may have to wait 18 months before he is formally cleared of being a suspect.
Pals say he's the victim of the "biggest character assassination in history".
Meanwhile, Kate and Gerry - from Rothley, Leics - spent yesterday with friends at an Algarve villa.
They are planning a series of events to mark 100 days if Madeleine is still missing on August 11.
Relatives say they have been hurt by renewed criticism for leaving their children alone in their apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.
But a source said: "They can't waste their energy on these cruel slurs."
'Robert is 100percent innocent'
r.bletchly@people.co.uk
CAPTION(S):
ANGUISH: Jenny says son never left house; SUSPECT: Murat was picked up 11 days after Maddie went missing; GRIEF: Gerry, Kate and the villa Jenny told cops about
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
That would be a PR disaster
If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral
That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine
If Amaral doesn't go for it, however, they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest
How they'd spin that, though, I can't imagine
Hi icabodcrane and thanks for your input. I am of the opinion that the McCanns, as plaintiffs, could just simply drop the action and walk away and perhaps they couldn't care less about "spin"- this action is about stopping Amaral and his lies. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that. The truth is that none of us really knows... we shall find out in due course.
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
That would be a PR disaster
If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral
That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine
If Amaral doesn't go for it, however, they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest
How they'd spin that, though, I can't imagine
Hi icabodcrane and thanks for your input. I am of the opinion that the McCanns, as plaintiffs, could just simply drop the action and walk away and perhaps they couldn't care less about "spin"- this action is about stopping Amaral and his lies. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that. The truth is that none of us really knows... we shall find out in due course.
I think PR is extremely important to the McCanns ... hence the employment of Clarence Mitchell ( who is just a spin doctor after all is said and done )
I would be interested to know what terms for an out of court settlement they offered Amaral ( which were not to his liking it appears ) ... I should think, at a minimum, they would require a public retraction of his claim that they staged Madeleine's abduction and disposed of her body
What do you think would be absolutely non-negotiable to the Mccanns in any settlement with Amaral ?
-
Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front. Although you are wrong, of course. But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front. Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.
You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know. Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial. The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one. Or he didn't. Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial. And in the end, whatever happens, it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person. It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.
-
Amaral of course never had an ace
Like most on here I too watched the fillum based on his book
The 'ace' in that bit of fillum - appeared to be a rather dodgery old gentleman - going on ad nauseam about
lock mechanisms and such much
T'was more like a Youtube DIY video - I nodded off
Amaral does not do aces or smoking guns - damp squibs are more his thing
And I bet he wishes himself to have kept a dignified silence after having been booted off the enquiry rather
than trying to become a celeb
Amaral has been looking ill, very ill for some time now
-
Amaral of course never had an ace
Like most on here I too watched the fillum based on his book
The 'ace' in that bit of fillum - appeared to be a rather dodgery old gentleman - going on ad nauseam about
lock mechanisms and such much
T'was more like a Youtube DIY video - I nodded off
Amaral does not do aces or smoking guns - damp squibs are more his thing
And I bet he wishes himself to have kept a dignified silence after having been booted off the enquiry rather
than trying to become a celeb
Amaral has been looking ill, very ill for some time now
And I am really sad that he is looking so ill. But I don't expect anyone to believe that.
-
Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front. Although you are wrong, of course. But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front. Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.
You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know. Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial. The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one. Or he didn't. Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial. And in the end, whatever happens, it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person. It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.
I have no interest in Bennett who had no business setting himself up as some sort of champion of the opposition ... he had no direct personal interest in the case and no insider knowledge that set him apart from the rest of us ... small fry
Not so Amaral
You are right, though, when you say there is no absolute proof that it was the McCanns who approached Amaral for an out of court settlement ( I was going by reports in the Potuguese press and TV which the McCanns have not denied )
In any event though ( whether it was the McCanns who wanted to call off the libel trial, or if it was Amaral ) what do you think would be the absolute minimum the McCanns would require of Amaral in any out of court settlement ?
-
humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...
for approaching the case of a missing child
with a cavalier, closed mind
-
humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...
for approaching the case of a missing child
with a cavalier, closed mind
So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he 'takes it back' ?
-
humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...
for approaching the case of a missing child
with a cavalier, closed mind
So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he 'takes it back' ?
Don't regurgitate my post and ever so slightly try to put your 6th form spin on it
My post is quite clear
-
Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front. Although you are wrong, of course. But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front. Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.
You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know. Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial. The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one. Or he didn't. Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial. And in the end, whatever happens, it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person. It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.
I have no interest in Bennett who had no business setting himself up as some sort of champion of the opposition ... he had no direct personal interest in the case and no insider knowledge that set him apart from the rest of us ... small fry
Not so Amaral
You are right, though, when you say there is no absolute proof that it was the McCanns who approached Amaral for an out of court settlement ( I was going by reports in the Potuguese press and TV which the McCanns have not denied )
In any event though ( whether it was the McCanns who wanted to call off the libel trial, or if it was Amaral ) what do you think would be the absolute minimum the McCanns would require of Amaral in any out of court settlement ?
How can I say? I don't know how pissed off they are with him. But they have never struck me as vindictive people.
Obviously the Lawyer's Costs have to be met. But apart from that I would say that The McCanns would settle for an apology and a minimal payment, just so as no one gets the wrong idea.
If anything then Amaral would balk at the apology. His money is gone because there are far too many other people queueing up for what is left.
I would have made a guess at 300,000 Euros. But now I would go for 30,000 Euros. Enough to make it smart. And still leave enough for the other little people that he has robbed.
-
humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...
for approaching the case of a missing child
with a cavalier, closed mind
So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he 'takes it back' ?
Don't regurgitate my post and ever so slightly try to put your 6th form spin on it
My post is quite clear
That's not what I was doing
Your post wasn't clear to me ... I was asking, therefore, in order to clarify ... would you expect, as a minimum requirement by the McCanns for an out of court settlement, that Amaral admit his thesis was entirely wrong, and he 'takes it back ' ?
Would you ?
-
Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front. Although you are wrong, of course. But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front. Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.
You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know. Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial. The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one. Or he didn't. Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial. And in the end, whatever happens, it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person. It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.
I have no interest in Bennett who had no business setting himself up as some sort of champion of the opposition ... he had no direct personal interest in the case and no insider knowledge that set him apart from the rest of us ... small fry
Not so Amaral
You are right, though, when you say there is no absolute proof that it was the McCanns who approached Amaral for an out of court settlement ( I was going by reports in the Potuguese press and TV which the McCanns have not denied )
In any event though ( whether it was the McCanns who wanted to call off the libel trial, or if it was Amaral ) what do you think would be the absolute minimum the McCanns would require of Amaral in any out of court settlement ?
How can I say? I don't know how pissed off they are with him. But they have never struck me as vindictive people.
Obviously the Lawyer's Costs have to be met. But apart from that I would say that The McCanns would settle for an apology and a minimal payment, just so as no one gets the wrong idea.
If anything then Amaral would balk at the apology. His money is gone because there are far too many other people queueing up for what is left.
I would have made a guess at 300,000 Euros. But now I would go for 30,000 Euros. Enough to make it smart. And still leave enough for the other little people that he has robbed.
'Costs' are only of import when you lose though, so that would only be a consideration if the McCanns were concerned about the possibility of losing at trial, wouldn't it ?
I would think that an apology would not be sufficient ... I would think that an assurance that the 'libel' will not be repeated in future would be an absolute 'written in blood' requirement of any settlement
Without that ( gagging order ) any 'settlement' would be worthless
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said ... he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true, based on the evidence he was privy to
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding
Whether or not the 'evidence' he was privy to supports his case, is something we do not know at this point .. we'll have to wait and see
It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful, I know ... but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in believing they were involved is quite a different thing
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said ... he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true, based on the evidence he was privy to
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding
Whether or not the 'evidence' he was privy to supports his case, is something we do not know at this point .. we'll have to wait and see
It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful, I know ... but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in believing they were involved is quite a different thing
Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case. But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them. This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts. And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said ... he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true, based on the evidence he was privy to
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding
Whether or not the 'evidence' he was privy to supports his case, is something we do not know at this point .. we'll have to wait and see
It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful, I know ... but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in believing they were involved is quite a different thing
Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case. But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them. This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts. And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.
I agree that, properly, he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left ... he was though, without doubt ... and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial ( whether he should or not ) ... and will have witnesses to call in that respect
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said ... he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true, based on the evidence he was privy to
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding
Whether or not the 'evidence' he was privy to supports his case, is something we do not know at this point .. we'll have to wait and see
It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful, I know ... but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in believing they were involved is quite a different thing
Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case. But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them. This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts. And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.
I agree that, properly, he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left ... he was though, without doubt ... and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial ( whether he should or not ) ... and will have witnesses to call in that respect
He carried that ill gotten knowledge into his book which he used to make money. And if he is going to produce witnesses to this effect then they will be saying that they gave him information to which he was not entitled. So they can kiss goodbye to their further careers in The PJ.
Do you think that they will be that stupid?
-
Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough. And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another. And doubt not that they will be, even above all else. And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.
I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof. But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.
Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.
I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said ... he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true, based on the evidence he was privy to
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding
Whether or not the 'evidence' he was privy to supports his case, is something we do not know at this point .. we'll have to wait and see
It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful, I know ... but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in believing they were involved is quite a different thing
Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case. But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them. This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts. And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.
I agree that, properly, he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left ... he was though, without doubt ... and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial ( whether he should or not ) ... and will have witnesses to call in that respect
He carried that ill gotten knowledge into his book which he used to make money. And if he is going to produce witnesses to this effect then they will be saying that they gave him information to which he was not entitled. So they can kiss goodbye to their further careers in The PJ.
Do you think that they will be that stupid?
I don't think it works like that Eleanor
Amaral can call any witnesses he chooses, and as long as they tell the truth under oath then what is wrong with that ? ... that is where justice is found ... in truth
Don't you agree ?
-
Oh, indeed I do, Icabod. But what truth will they be telling? It will only be their opinion after all. They don't have any proof either. So where is The Truth?
And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive. Not looking good, is it.
-
Oh, indeed I do, Icabod. But what truth will they be telling? It will only be their opinion after all. They don't have any proof either. So where is The Truth?
And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive. Not looking good, is it.
However it is 'looking' I have no objection to any witness offering evidence under oath ... which ever side they are on
That is what law courts provide us with ... an arena in which evidence is viewed dispassionately and fairly
I'm looking forward to this one ( although I have always felt, and still feel, it will never actually go ahead )
-
Oh, indeed I do, Icabod. But what truth will they be telling? It will only be their opinion after all. They don't have any proof either. So where is The Truth?
And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive. Not looking good, is it.
However it is 'looking' I have no objection to any witness offering evidence under oath ... which ever side they are on
That is what law courts provide us with ... an arena in which evidence is viewed dispassionately and fairly
I'm looking forward to this one ( although I have always felt, and still feel, it will never actually go ahead )
Unfortunately for Amaral Libel Trials require proof, and there is none..
-
In a libel case in Portugal, it is the one that accuses that has to prove that he/she/they/it have been harmed or damaged by the defendant.
Why do you think the McCann attempted an agreement out of Court?
They have no way to prove what they allege. And furthermore they fear the Courts as the Devil fears the Crux.
-
Amaral's Ace is ready, as we say in Portugal "deixa-os pousar (let them land)... 8(>(( 8(>((
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
Not necessarily.
The first trial was about what is called Prior Restraint- could a publisher be required to not publish a possible defamatory item. The answer was no.
The second trial is about defamation and personal injury and will consider different matters entirely.
In the USA there is a total ban on any Prior Restraint, yet libel judgments are still made.
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
Cite please for the penalty for 'wasting time'. Another of your unsupported fairy tales again?
-
Amaral has no "ace". He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007? He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.
thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it
I see. So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, we shall see soon
Indeed. We shall see soon who has been telling the truth.
mr Amaral was vindicated last time as doing so, so where does that leave the libel trial? It isnt based on facts that writ but allegations which cant be proved, slam dunk not going anywhere IMO, last word
He was not vindicated. The decision was that Prior Restraint was not a possibility. As noted above, defamation is yet to be assessed and proved or disproved.
-
In a libel case in Portugal, it is the one that accuses that has to prove that he/she/they/it have been harmed or damaged by the defendant.
Why do you think the McCann attempted an agreement out of Court?
They have no way to prove what they allege. And furthermore they fear the Courts as the Devil fears the Crux.
Could you clarify? Who's "they"? And what do "they" allege which has to be proven?
-
Amaral's Ace is ready, as we say in Portugal "deixa-os pousar (let them land)... 8(>(( 8(>((
So he has not given the so-called ace to the Police yet then
-
Redblossom wrote:
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.
As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.
Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"? Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.
-
Redblossom wrote:
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.
As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.
Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"? Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.
Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed ( or 'encouraged' ) them to ?
I find that an astonishing claim
-
Redblossom wrote:
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.
As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.
Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"? Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.
Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed ( or 'encouraged' ) them to ?
I find that an astonishing claim
Courts, especially civil ones, have always encouraged such setlements. That is how the Express Group case was wound up.
-
Redblossom wrote:
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.
As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.
Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"? Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.
Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed ( or 'encouraged' ) them to ?
I find that an astonishing claim
Really? At every step the court procedures are designed to encourage settlement and to avoid the case coming to court. This starts with a "pre action protocol" or "letters before claim", to show that the parties have attempted to resolve the issue before going to law.
Europewide, over 90% of cases are settled out of court - sometimes "on the steps of the court".
In this context, why would a court impose a penalty for wasting time, when by seeking to settle out of court the parties would be avoiding wasting the courts time?
In terms of the McCanns discussing terms with Amaral - only the plaintiff can stay proceedings. Therefore if Amaral were seeking to come to terms, it would be the McCanns who would need to take action to stay proceedings while negotiations took place. It seems in this agreement could not be reached, and therefore the case will be relisted.
-
Redblossom wrote:
Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon
This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.
As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.
Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"? Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.
Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed ( or 'encouraged' ) them to ?
I find that an astonishing claim
Really? At every step the court procedures are designed to encourage settlement and to avoid the case coming to court. This starts with a "pre action protocol" or "letters before claim", to show that the parties have attempted to resolve the issue before going to law.
Europewide, over 90% of cases are settled out of court - sometimes "on the steps of the court".
In this context, why would a court impose a penalty for wasting time, when by seeking to settle out of court the parties would be avoiding wasting the courts time?
In terms of the McCanns discussing terms with Amaral - only the plaintiff can stay proceedings. Therefore if Amaral were seeking to come to terms, it would be the McCanns who would need to take action to stay proceedings while negotiations took place. It seems in this agreement could not be reached, and therefore the case will be relisted.
... and if the McCanns had no interest in 'settling' with Amaral out of court, then they could not be compelled to to 'stay' proceedings
They could tell the court that they were resolute in their determination to prove, publicly, that Amaral had defamed them
In which case, no negotiations between the parties would ever take place
Is that correct ?
-
Correct. But the McCanns would probably be happy just to prevent any future printings and getting a promise from Amaral to shut up.
They may have tried to find a result that met their requirements without going totrial with the extra publicity it would generate.
-
Correct. But the McCanns would probably be happy just to prevent any future printings and getting a promise from Amaral to shut up.
They may have tried to find a result that met their requirements without going totrial with the extra publicity it would generate.
You mean adverse publicity ? ( the McCanns have actively sought and welcomed good publicity and even hired PR people to facilitate it )
What kind of 'adverse' publicity might a libel trial bring then, do you think ?
-
Ibodcrane wrote: "... and if the McCanns had no interest in 'settling' with Amaral out of court, then they could not be compelled to to 'stay' proceedings
They could tell the court that they were resolute in their determination to prove, publicly, that Amaral had defamed them
In which case, no negotiations between the parties would ever take place
Is that correct ?"
_____________
Correct.
However, there are a number of factors which need to be considered in the real world:
1: All litigation is a risk. And expensive. If there is a a viable alternative, then it would be explored
2: An out of court settlement, even for a lower amount, has attractions. Immediate settlement and avoidance of a string of appeals, which could drag on for years.
3: Finally, if one of the parties had indicated a willingness to negotiate and the other party had turned this down, it may not play well with the court in the trial and may impact on the distribution of costs.
-
2: An out of court settlement, even for a lower amount, has attractions. Immediate settlement and avoidance of a string of appeals, which could drag on for years.
For instance, if Amaral entered into negotiations to attempt an out-of-court settlement, or even agreed at the McCanns' invitation, would that not suggest that he sees very little prospect of winning?
And if he sees very little prospect of winning, would he indulge the expense of torturous appeals?
Is there a risk of another of these ex parte judgments on appeal?
-
He could spin it out for years and years.
-
He claimed he cold produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...
Well 4 years later ...still waiting 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Did he ?
I thought he believed that Madeleine died as the result of an accident that occured when the McCanns were absent
Can you bring us the quote where he said the McCanns 'killed' their daughter, and he could prove it ?
It's important to twig the distinction between killed and murdered.
Doesn't Amaral say, somewhere, about a possible overdose of medication?
There's your distinction ...
-
He claimed he cold produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...
Well 4 years later ...still waiting 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Did he ?
I thought he believed that Madeleine died as the result of an accident that occured when the McCanns were absent
Can you bring us the quote where he said the McCanns 'killed' their daughter, and he could prove it ?
It's important to twig the distinction between killed and murdered.
Doesn't Amaral say, somewhere, about a possible overdose of medication?
There's your distinction ...
No he didnt ever mention overdosing, just accidental death and not killing or murder, fill your boots though
-
you do realise that the link to the book is available on here?
-
Amaral's Ace is ready, as we say in Portugal "deixa-os pousar (let them land)... 8(>(( 8(>((
Should be revealed soon then.
-
. At the end of all this (a lot of water is still going to flow in the Thames river...) someone will reimburse me for all the wicked actions taken against me... Then, I will tell the rest”, said in a single burst Gonçalo Amaral, without accepting any further questions.
TVmais
-
Amaral doesn't have an ace, and this trial is not going to hinge upon the revelation of a smoking gun, or a killer piece of evidence. There will be no Columbo moments that some of you - inexplicably - appear to be hoping for.
Amaral's lawyers will be concentrating on emphasising other contributing factors that caused damage to the McCanns. His lawyers will know that he will be paying damages. The only question is whether they will be nominal or punitive. He's basically on a damage limitation exercise.
-
Amaral doesn't have an ace, and this trial is not going to hinge upon the revelation of a smoking gun, or a killer piece of evidence. There will be no Columbo moments that some of you - inexplicably - appear to be hoping for.
Amaral's lawyers will be concentrating on emphasising other contributing factors that caused damage to the McCanns. His lawyers will know that he will be paying damages. The only question is whether they will be nominal or punitive. He's basically on a damage limitation exercise.
Then why didn't he settle with the McCanns when they suggested it ? Surely that would have been better for him as he would have had some control over what he had to pay whereas now, if the McCanns, win it will be the judge's decision ?
-
Amaral doesn't have an ace, and this trial is not going to hinge upon the revelation of a smoking gun, or a killer piece of evidence. There will be no Columbo moments that some of you - inexplicably - appear to be hoping for.
Amaral's lawyers will be concentrating on emphasising other contributing factors that caused damage to the McCanns. His lawyers will know that he will be paying damages. The only question is whether they will be nominal or punitive. He's basically on a damage limitation exercise.
Punitive damages aren't allowed in PT.
I'll add link when I find it.
-
Then why didn't he settle with the McCanns when they suggested it ? Surely that would have been better for him as he would have had some control over what he had to pay whereas now, if the McCanns, win it will be the judge's decision ?
Have you got a cite to prove that it was the McCanns that asked to settle, faith?
-
Amaral doesn't have an ace, and this trial is not going to hinge upon the revelation of a smoking gun, or a killer piece of evidence. There will be no Columbo moments that some of you - inexplicably - appear to be hoping for.
Amaral's lawyers will be concentrating on emphasising other contributing factors that caused damage to the McCanns. His lawyers will know that he will be paying damages. The only question is whether they will be nominal or punitive. He's basically on a damage limitation exercise.
Good assessment.
santos is already on record as saying Madeleine could be alive which, given what he is defending his client's right to say, is remarkable, to say the least ...
-
Good assessment.
santos is already on record as saying Madeleine could be alive which, given what he is defending his client's right to say, is remarkable, to say the least ...
So where is she ?
Perhaps in Dave Edgar's little lawless village, 10 miles from PDL. ?
Or maybe aboard the Federation Starship Enterprise ?
As logical, pun intended, as the abduction thesis. 8((()*/
-
So where is she ?
Perhaps in Dave Edgar's little lawless village, 10 miles from PDL. ?
Or maybe aboard the Federation Starship Enterprise ?
As logical, pun intended, as the abduction thesis. 8((()*/
What, precisely, are we supposed to make of your lascivious drooling at the notion that Madeleine might be dead?
-
What, precisely, are we supposed to make of your lascivious drooling at the notion that Madeleine might be dead?
Drooling no.
I leave that to your pursuit of Mr. Grimes.
Meanwhile 'ferryman', let's see your deductive reasoning in play.
Where's Madeleine ?
-
What, precisely, are we supposed to make of your lascivious drooling at the notion that Madeleine might be dead?
You are so out of order sometimes, actually, most of the time
Urgggh
-
Have you got a cite to prove that it was the McCanns that asked to settle, faith?
BUMP
-
Have you got a cite to prove that it was the McCanns that asked to settle, faith?
The fact was widely reported in the Portuguese press.
-
Which has always told the truth about this case (or at least the version of the truth fed to it by particular groups.)
In such cases in any jurisdiction, there is always pressure from the courts to avoid wasting court time. If a judger or administrator sees that there is a potential solution, then they will try to encourage the parties to settle. It is not a Mexican Stand-off waiting for one side to blink, but and administrative necessity. Whatever the truth, the court permitted a six month negotiating period which eventually failed.
Like so many silly arguments in this case, this one has no real basis in fact, only in the stupid trench war being carried out between factions.
'Whatever the truth'.
So you agree that the McCanns could very well have asked for the subject of a settlement to be explored.
Glad we got that one sorted out.
-
I have never said otherwise. I have said that speculating on minimal information is just a method of turning up the heat in discussing meaningless minutiae on these forums.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/01/mccanns-ask-for-extrajudicial-settlement.html
newspaper report and transcribed tv interview
So which part of that has "no real basis in fact"?
-
«The trial, which has been postponed twice, was suspended upon the request of the English couple's lawyer in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement between the parties. Something which never happened.»
original http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=3417080
translation http://www.mccannfiles.com/id451.html
-
That s indeed the view of a journalist.
Do you have a real cite.
Portuguese Journalists popularised the Body in a Fridge.
@)(++(* And do you have a "Real Cite", any cite at all for saying that the McCanns didn't ask for the settlement. Stop being silly!
-
«The trial, which has been postponed twice, was suspended upon the request of the English couple's lawyer in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement between the parties. Something which never happened.»
original http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=3417080
translation http://www.mccannfiles.com/id451.html
IIRC only the plaintiff can request the court for a suspension regardless of who made the first move to attempt to settle out of court. There is no legal provision for the Defendant to make that request.. That being the case, the fact that the McCanns made the request tells us nothing about who instigated an out of court settlement attempt, only that both parties agreed to try.