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: Jean-Pierre on September 12, 2013, 12:41:33 PM
Title: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 12, 2013, 12:41:33 PM
I thought Mr Amaral was anxious to have his day in court.
So why has he apparently applied (reportedly uncessfully) to have the media banned from this trial?
I am puzzled.
(http://i.imgur.com/WXBPMk6.jpg)
Gonçalo Amaral arriving at court in Lisbon this morning.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 12:43:35 PM
Just academic now, it wont be in camera. (sky report)
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 12:47:49 PM
Not academic at all.
JP has asked why Amaral wanted proceedings conducted in camera.
My guess would be damage limitation.
He doesn't want his risible "thesis" exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Carana on September 12, 2013, 12:48:36 PM
JP has asked why Amaral wanted proceedings conducted in camera.
My guess would be damage limitation.
He doesn't want his risible "thesis" exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny ...
a) your guesses assumptions and wild assertions never have amounted to much but in any case if that is the reason the request was made it would have been made first time around,ergo, it cant be and details of the polices conclusions were made public first time around!!! Nothing to hide then is there?
@)(++(* b) there is no such thing as his thesis as well you know, it was the whole teams conclusion at the time, why twist things? Oh hang on......Zzzzz
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Amaral says he wants the case help in camera to "preserve the memory of Madeleine."Obviously Duarte and her clients have no such qualms.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 12, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
8(0(* ?{)(**
This from a man who has written a book promulgating his theory that she is dead and her parents staged a coverup. And made a "documentary". And gave a number of interviews.
So...... what has changed?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 12, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
This from a man who has written a book promulgating his theory that she is dead and her parents staged a coverup. And made a "documentary". And gave a number of interviews.
So...... what has changed?
Nothing. Justice for Madeleine has always been his objective.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 01:50:27 PM
Nothing. Justice for Madeleine has always been his objective.
And I think you are right. Unlike the McCann, it was never Amaral's aim to be on the news. His preoccupation was always to help justice to be achieved for Madeleine.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 01:55:28 PM
This from a man who has written a book promulgating his theory that she is dead and her parents staged a coverup. And made a "documentary". And gave a number of interviews.
So...... what has changed?
The way the thesis is likely to be presented in court, distinct from the spin put on it in film, book, interview (etc.)
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 01:56:18 PM
Nothing. Justice for Madeleine has always been his objective.
OK. 8)--)) So the money, the jag, the earring (!!?), the 80,000 euros for an interview were incidental?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 02:05:54 PM
What annoys me the most in the reports over this trial is that not a single newspaper has reported that Amaral, little after his book became a hit, went to a very private and "posh" dinner (if memory doesn't fail me it was in Guimarães castle), where only the royalty of Europe and very distinguished persons were invited, in order to donate money to poor children in Africa. I know that the entering fee was 500€, but most people donated much more. I haven't factual information about it, but I was told by attendants that Dr. Amaral was a benefactor. There is video proof (I sent it to maccannfiles) that he was there and if asked I believe the organization would reveal how much he donated - in my avis he gave all he got from the book, but that is only my opinion.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Cudge on September 12, 2013, 02:08:10 PM
What annoys me the most in the reports over this trial is that not a single newspaper has reported that Amaral, little after his book became a hit, went to a very private and "posh" dinner (if memory doesn't fail me it was in Guimarães castle), where only the royalty of Europe and very distinguished persons were invited, in order to donate money to poor children in Africa. I know that the entering fee was 500€, but most people donated much more. I haven't factual information about it, but I was told by attendants that Dr. Amaral was a benefactor. There is video proof (I sent it to maccannfiles) that he was there and if asked I believe the organization would reveal how much he donated - in my avis he gave all he got from the book, but that is only my opinion.
Come off it Luz. ?{)(** 8)-)))
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 02:13:22 PM
It proves, at least that he was not using the money to pay his mortgage - he had one on his house just like the McCann.
There is a photograph that appears to prove he attended the dinner.
What about the rest?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 02:17:07 PM
And like the McCann he had a 3 year old daughter that he had to abandon in order to search for the one that the parents couldn't take time to look for.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 02:21:45 PM
There is a photograph that appears to prove he attended the dinner.
What about the rest?
I told you it was my opinion that he gave all the money from the books away. My opinion cannot be funded. Anyway he had to divorce his wife in order to protect her and his younger daughter when the McCann filed the claim against him.
When you think about a suffering couple whose daughter is missing you expect them to be selfish but not cruel to the point of disrupting the life of a young girl, as old as theirs.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 12, 2013, 02:28:12 PM
So the McCann's lawyer has stated publicly that they cannot 'find' Amaral's money, and implies he has 'hidden' it ?
I'm confused
Amaral, at this moment is innocent of libel ( in the eyes of the law ) is he not ?
How, then, can the McCanns demand to know the details of her personal finances ? ... surely that only becomes relevant and 'their business' if he is found guilty of libeling them
Or am I wrong ? do the McCanns have a legal right to know how much money Amaral has, and what he does with it , even though up to this point he is merely accused of libel rather than convicted of it ?
What I mean is, has Amaral broken any laws by not providing the details of his finances to the McCanns ?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 02:31:16 PM
I told you it was my opinion that he gave all the money from the books away. My opinion cannot be funded. Anyway he had to divorce his wife in order to protect her and his younger daughter when the McCann filed the claim against him.
When you think about a suffering couple whose daughter is missing you expect them to be selfish but not cruel to the point of disrupting the life of a young girl, as old as theirs.
When I think of Leonor Cipriano, tied to that chair with a bag over her head as she was beaten to a point of near blindness by those gentlemen officers of the PJ, under the command and direction of Goncalo Amaral, my eyes fill with tears ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 02:49:30 PM
When I think of Leonor Cipriano, tied to that chair with a bag over her head as she was beaten to a point of near blindness by those gentlemen officers of the PJ, under the command and direction of Goncalo Amaral, my eyes fill with tears ...
Obviously you have been brainwashed. Leonor Cipriano was never tied. She was interrogated in Faro in the presence of her attorney when she confessed the crime - as the law obligates. (The same law why the McCann had to be made arguidos in the presence of their lawyers).
She was attacked when she was admitted in the Ourique prison. You know, the other prisioners don't like women that kill children. At the time that she entered the prison the Director was away, when she shouldn't have. [there is a rule that inmates that have armed children must be kept apart, this one was not]
When Leonor appeared all bruised up, 2 days after having been in Faro PJ Headquarters, the brilliant director sent Leonor to a doctor. The initial report was that the bruises were caused by recent battering. Anyway, the will to make the Director look innocent about this mess made the brilliant Dr. Marinho Pinto and some friends he could manipulate to attempt to implicate the Judiaciary Police.
Leonor couldn't recognize anyone in Court and she couldn't even decide which colour was the alleged plastic bag that they put over her head - I don't believe a victim would forget those things.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 12, 2013, 02:54:24 PM
When I think of Leonor Cipriano, tied to that chair with a bag over her head as she was beaten to a point of near blindness by those gentlemen officers of the PJ, under the command and direction of Goncalo Amaral, my eyes fill with tears ...
What on earth has that got to do with the post you were replying to ? ... or to this thread at all ?
There are other threads where you can weep for the woman convicted and currently serving a prison sentence for the murder and mutilation of a child
I do hope this thread will not be taken off course like so many others are
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 03:04:08 PM
Amaral's practises as coordinator of the Madeleine investigation fell short of the highest standards, a deficiency manifest in much else of his police work.
And Dr Amaral would prefer not to have that deficiency exposed in court.
Hence he asked that the libel trial be conducted in camera.
In some ways I (genuinely) regret that his request wasn't granted -- although for reasons nothing whatever to do with wishing to spare Amaral's blushes ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 12, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
I was under the impression that Amaral wanted all the publicity he could get from these hearings so if this is true it doesn't sit well with open and free disclosure. Anne was supposed to be attending the hearing today so hopefully she will report back.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 12, 2013, 04:29:01 PM
Luz. Please refrain from making derogatory comments in French. TY
I think that was the remark addressed to me, John. In fairness to Luz, it was not even french - I think what she was perhaps trying to say was "démerdez-vous!", which is not derogatory. 8)-)))
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Carana on September 12, 2013, 04:35:27 PM
I think that was the remark addressed to me, John. In fairness to Luz, it was not even french - I think what she was perhaps trying to say was "démerdez-vous!", which is not derogatory. 8)-)))
Is that what she may have meant?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 12, 2013, 04:43:56 PM
Well I suppose at a stretch it could just be in context. It just shows how careful you have to be when trying to be clever in other languages - the potential for looking foolish is enormous. ?{)(**
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: DCI on September 12, 2013, 05:12:32 PM
Why is Mrs Hubbard at the trial, giving evidence about the devastation the McCanns suffered when Amaral published his book
By that time the McCanns were back in Britain and the Hubbards had returned to Canada ... is that not correct
I understand that they may have kept in touch, but surely this woman is not the one best placed to speak for the McCanns ?
Why did they choose her as a witness when she did not even witness their distress in person ?
I believe the Hubbards arrived 3 or 4 days after Madeleine disappeared and were still in Portugal at the time Kate's book was published. Whether they are still there I don't know. Susan Hubbard and Kate became close friends.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 05:16:31 PM
Yes, youve told us about a hundred times now but big deal, just makes him one of the millions around the world that dont, for x y z reasons, not that it is in any way relevant, more relevant are the bare faced lies told by both the mccanns on several occasions
Perspective dear
@)(++(*
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 12, 2013, 05:51:52 PM
I believe the Hubbards arrived 3 or 4 days after Madeleine disappeared and were still in Portugal at the time Kate's book was published. Whether they are still there I don't know. Susan Hubbard and Kate became close friends.
I believe Susan Hubbard now lives in Canada. However she was flown in to 'babysit' the twins when the McCanns were promoting Kate's book and was flown in to keep Kate company on her solitary visit to PDL in May this year. Makes you wonder whether the McCanns still have any support at all within their close circle of family and friends.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
It would seem that twitter is awash with vile anti-McCann rhetoric, all prompted by details of the trial.
No doubt another reason why Amaral wanted proceedings in camera.
All Mr Amaral's loyal supporters doing their worst by him by proving what damage his thesis has done to their reputation ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
It would seem that twitter is awash with vile anti-McCann rhetoric, all prompted by details of the trial.
No doubt another reason why Amaral wanted proceedings in camera.
All Mr Amaral's loyal supporters doing their worst by him by proving what damage his thesis has done to their reputation ...
8@??)(
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: DCI on September 12, 2013, 06:08:50 PM
The Hubbards lived in Praia da Luz between 2007 and 2012.
Since Madeleine’s disappearance, the Hubbards have participated in a memorial vigil held in Portugal each year — the most recent of which occurred in April 2013. So Susan was not flown in to to babysit the twins or to keep Kate company on her solitary visit to PDL in APRIL this year.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 12, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
The Hubbards lived in Praia da Luz between 2007 and 2012.
Since Madeleine’s disappearance, the Hubbards have participated in a memorial vigil held in Portugal each year — the most recent of which occurred in April 2013. So Susan was not flown in to to babysit the twins or to keep Kate company on her solitary visit to PDL in APRIL this year.
Kate McCann yesterday flew to the resort where she last saw daughter Madeleine as a friend revealed: “She feels close to her there.”
'She made the lone journey three days after collapsing in tears at a prayer service at her home village to mark the sixth anniversary of Maddie’s disappearance.
One of her first visits will be to the medieval church of Nossa Senhora da Luz, or Our Lady of the Light, in Praia da Luz in Portugal’s Algarve to pray and light candles.'
And from Kate's book :
'While Susan Hubbard, over from Portugal to look after Sean and Amelie, took charge of Madeleine's birthday party for me and Gerry in Rothley, our gift to our daughter was a marathon day of intensive interviews and press conferences in London. Back at our hotel that evening, Clarence received word that Gerry should expect a call from David Cameron's private secretary. Incredibly, it seemed the prime minister might already have agreed to a review. We hadn't expected a response to the open letter for several days at least, if we got one at all. We hardly dared to hope this was true until several conversations with various government officials confirmed that a review was to be conducted by the Metropolitan Police. Oh my God ! Finally help was coming. Happy Birthday Madeleine. Other than hearing that she had been found there could have been no news sweeter to my ears. We were so grateful.'
'
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: sika on September 12, 2013, 06:26:19 PM
Whatever you think of Amarals theories, how inappropriate it was of him, to publish such a book.
The man is quite obviously unhinged and his motives are suspect, to say the least.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 06:29:21 PM
The Hubbards lived in Praia da Luz between 2007 and 2012.
Since Madeleine’s disappearance, the Hubbards have participated in a memorial vigil held in Portugal each year — the most recent of which occurred in April 2013. So Susan was not flown in to to babysit the twins or to keep Kate company on her solitary visit to PDL in APRIL this year.
Yes she was obviously, seeing as she left Portugal in 2012 LOL
If he has concluded that Gerry and Kate were responsible for Madeleine's death, then he is quite clearly unhinged.
For the umpteenth time, it was not HE alone that came up with theory...moving on..no , no one said the parents were responsible for her death, and even if they did, how does that make them unhinged? Do you know that that they werent? Or even if they werent but did cover it up? no you dont.. So calling any police officer unhinged just because YOU dont believe in the parental involvement in some way and havng no evidence either way is unfounded...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: sika on September 12, 2013, 08:10:33 PM
To be honest, I've not read the book and am never likely to. The fact that he even wrote it, struck me as being wholly inappropriate.
Whatever his views, Amarals decision to publish this book, shows him in an extremely poor light. He has displayed exceptionally poor judgement and has demonstrated an unforgivable lack of compassion for the parents of Madeliene. The same can be said of a few contributors on here.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
To be honest, I've not read the book and am never likely to. The fact that he even wrote it, struck me as being wholly inappropriate.
Whatever his views, Amarals decision to publish this book, shows him in an extremely poor light. He has displayed exceptionally poor judgement and has demonstrated an unforgivable lack of compassion for the parents of Madeliene. The same can be said of a few contributors on here.
That is a matter of opinion, to say the least.
As to compassion, none for people who place their children's safety second best, to their socializing.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: sika on September 12, 2013, 08:21:54 PM
For the umpteenth time, it was not HE alone that came up with theory...moving on..no , no one said the parents were responsible for her death, and even if they did, how does that make them unhinged? Do you know that that they werent? Or even if they werent but did cover it up? no you dont.. So calling any police officer unhinged just because YOU dont believe in the parental involvement in some way and havng no evidence either way is unfounded...
It was "HE" that wrote the book.
If you are going to accuse Gerry and Kate of being responsible for the death/covering up the death of their daughter, then the onus is you to prove it. You can't just bandy around allegations, or even suggestions like that.
Have you ever stopped to think how you might feel, if you were in Kate and Gerrys situation? You got kids?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 08:29:42 PM
If you are going to accuse Gerry and Kate of being responsible for the death/covering up the death of their daughter, then the onus is you to prove it. You can't just bandy around allegations, or even suggestions like that.
Have you ever stopped to think how you might feel, if you were in Kate and Gerrys situation? You got kids?
It would be helpful and constructive if you actually read and then responded to my post instead of going off again
Eta
i repeat for the hard of hearing, it was not HIS theory alone, do you actually get that?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 08:37:10 PM
As I'm a darling I'll give you one translation of the Preface: from Anna Andress, a translation from the French version.
This is the Foreword from the French version, [urlhttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.pt/2009/06/madeleine-mccann-forbidden.html][/url]
"Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.
However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.
In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the judiciary police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.
The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."[/b]
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: DCI on September 12, 2013, 08:45:10 PM
Quote
I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.
Liar, he was sacked.
Quote
I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation
So he deliberately harmed the case
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 08:47:21 PM
he was sacked from the case but not from the police, so yes he did request early retirement DCI, now whose lying >@@(*&)
as for your second quote, no, wrong agan, no use in biased selective quoting is there? it is clear he was aware that disclosure of ALL THE FACTS might harm the investigation....it doesnt mean he disclosed them ALL, he means exaxtly the opposite, he just disclosed a few things here and there...It really isnt rocket science
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
As I'm a darling I'll give you one translation of the Preface: from Anna Andress, a translation from the French version.
This is the Foreword from the French version, [urlhttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.pt/2009/06/madeleine-mccann-forbidden.html][/url]
"Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.
However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.
In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the judiciary police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.
The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."[/b]
I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity.
Amaral scrupulously disregarded the rules of the judiciary police by breaching the rules of secrecy in preparing his book for publication before the process was archived and before the veil of secrecy was lifted from the investigation. Our man Brunt has already established that!
And Amaral famously declared: Soon, very soon, the world will know the Truth of the Lie!
Suddenly, the same Goncalo Amaral seems keen to keep the same 'truth' veiled.
Why is that?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 12, 2013, 08:55:27 PM
It was a great loss for Portugal and Europe that he chose to get out in order to speak.
I'm not going to accuse anyone but just acknowledge that I am very sad that this man had to leave in order to defend himself and his family from you know who...
8(8-))
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 08:56:18 PM
I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity.
Amaral scrupulously disregarded the rules of the judiciary police by breaching the rules of secrecy in preparing his book for publication before the process was archived and before the veil of secrecy was lifted from the investigation. Our man Brunt has already established that!
And Amaral famously declared: Soon, very soon, the world will know the Truth of the Lie!
Suddenly, the same Goncalo Amaral seems keen to keep the same 'truth' veiled.
Why is that?
God youre so funny...LooooL
preparing a book is not breachng the law of secrecy, if he had published before the case was shelved you may have a point, but that never happened, so you dont
But carry on tryng to make black into white, you may get there some day, or probably and hopefully not, thankfully
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 08:58:47 PM
preparing a book is not breachng the law of secrecy, if he had published before the case was shelved you may have a point, but that never happened, so you dont
But carry on tryng to make black into white, you may get there some day, or probably and hopefully not, thankfully
Maybe you need to brush up a little on the rules of secrecy ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Carana on September 12, 2013, 09:00:32 PM
It was a great loss for Portugal and Europe that he chose to get out in order to speak.
I'm not going to accuse anyone but just acknowledge that I am very sad that this man had to leave in order to defend himself and his family from you know who...
8(8-))
Seriously?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 09:06:59 PM
As I'm a darling I'll give you one translation of the Preface: from Anna Andress, a translation from the French version.
This is the Foreword from the French version, [urlhttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.pt/2009/06/madeleine-mccann-forbidden.html][/url]
"Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the judiciary police and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.
However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.
In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the judiciary police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.
The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."[/b]
Why would anyone care what this man says, anyway?
If he believes that the parents were responsible, what on earth did he do about proving it?
The man was incompetent and totally bungled the investigation, hence, he was taken off the case.
He went on to further display his poor judgement, by writing this book.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 09:18:54 PM
Nope, why dont you explain how the book in preparation in private was in breach of secrecy laws....then explain how Isabel Duartes case against this alledged breach of the laws fell flat in its face a few years ago @)(++(*
In fact dont bother...nothing here to see, move on
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 09:23:28 PM
Nope, why dont you explain how the book in preparation in private was in breach of secrecy laws....then explain how Isabel Duartes case against this alledged breach of the laws fell flat in its face a few years ago @)(++(*
In fact dont bother...nothing here to see, move on
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?
Giles Tremlett, writing for The Guardian in the very early days, long before the veil of secrecy was lifted.
Having proofs proof-read, then printed, would have involved innumerable pairs of eyes, the majority belonging to people with no right to read (at that point!) confidential and restricted information ...
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?
Giles Tremlett, writing for The Guardian in the very early days, long before the veil of secrecy was lifted.
Having proofs proof-read, then printed, would have involved innumerable pairs of eyes, the majority belonging to people with no right to read (at that point!) confidential and restricted information ...
Dear god, you really have lost the plot havent you FM? carry on rambling, I think for the first time in many months I shall need to use the ignore function, just for my own sanity of course and protection from idiotic irrelevant crazy posts
@)(++(*
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: DCI on September 12, 2013, 09:27:06 PM
No he wasn't. He was redirected to lead the Faro's Headquarters where he was in a better position than in Portimão.
In fact just prior to asking for his resignation he made the biggest European arrest of drug's traffic. It is in the newspapers.
Yes I always wondered how the drugs found their way into Lawyer Grade's possession >@@(*&), while he was Leonors lawyer. Then Amaral uses him. He should have been struck off.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 09:29:02 PM
Dear god, you really have lost the plot havent you FM? carry on rambling, I think for the first time in many months I shall need to use the ignore function, just for my own sanity of course and protection from idiotic irrelevant crazy posts
@)(++(*
Something worthwhile achieved at last, even if your sanity is likely to suffer rather than improve ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 12, 2013, 10:01:40 PM
I was under the impression that Amaral wanted all the publicity he could get from these hearings so if this is true it doesn't sit well with open and free disclosure. Anne was supposed to be attending the hearing today so hopefully she will report back.
Mr Amaral was alone. Totally alone, in spite of being equipped with a lot of newspapers and a smart phone. But Mrs McCann, who had 3 Lift people and Mrs Hubbard and Mrs Loach etc. was very lonely too. Curiously one sat on the left extremity of the first row and the second on the right extremity of the row. Nobody dared to sit in the middle.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 12, 2013, 10:52:11 PM
Mr Amaral was alone. Totally alone, in spite of being equipped with a lot of newspapers and a smart phone. But Mrs McCann, who had 3 Lift people and Mrs Hubbard and Mrs Loach etc. was very lonely too. Curiously one sat on the left extremity of the first row and the second on the right extremity of the row. Nobody dared to sit in the middle.
So Amaral was totally alone and kate was part of a small group
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 12, 2013, 10:56:44 PM
he was sacked from the case but not from the police, so yes he did request early retirement DCI, now whose lying >@@(*&)
as for your second quote, no, wrong agan, no use in biased selective quoting is there? it is clear he was aware that disclosure of ALL THE FACTS might harm the investigation....it doesnt mean he disclosed them ALL, he means exaxtly the opposite, he just disclosed a few things here and there...It really isnt rocket science
It is for DCI. That's the fourth fact they have managed to get wrong today.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 12, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
You seem preoccupied with clothes and looks...what do you think of amarals outfit...would black shoes have been better
You missed the point, mrs k m says she has been suffering for six years, alot of footage proves she wasnt...nothing to so with amarals clothes or anything to do with him! And her latest video stating thryare suffering cos of mr amaral is a bloody joke
@)(++(*
Yawn see ya heard enough crap for one day
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 12, 2013, 11:17:20 PM
Dear god, you really have lost the plot havent you FM? carry on rambling, I think for the first time in many months I shall need to use the ignore function, just for my own sanity of course and protection from idiotic irrelevant crazy posts
@)(++(*
Couple's lawyer moves for criminal action
P.M.C. 14 January 2010 - 15h54 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
The McCann couple will file a criminal action against Gonçalo Amaral for allegedly violating judicial secrecy when he published facts concerning the investigation, in his book "Maddie – The Truth of the Lie".
According to Lusa Agency, the British couple's lawyer, Isabel Duarte, stated that the action will be filed after a certificate from the trial of the book's prohibition is extracted, which is expected to happen as soon as next week.
The accusation of violation of judicial secrecy is based on the date when the former inspector’s book was ready, which happened three days after the Republic's prosecutor wrote the process' archiving dispatch.
Isabel Duarte defends that "Gonçalo Amaral diffused the process to Guerra & Paz [the book's editor] when the process was still under judicial secrecy. He diffused facts and he was not authorised to do so".
The lawyer recalled that the video that was broadcast on TVI is evidence of that infraction, because it was an important piece within the investigation and stated that she is going to file a criminal complaint against the former inspector herself, over "false statements" to the court. According to Isabel Duarte, this accusation is based on statements by Gonçalo Amaral that he has "no real estate [nor any] participation in a firm", when in reality such is not true.
The former inspector is thus being accused over false statements, of violating the judicial secrecy, and of defamation by the McCann couple and by their lawyer.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 12, 2013, 11:17:31 PM
I think Kate cut a very lonely figure today. Abandoned by her husband, their families and their tapas friends even the hardest of hearts must have felt a twinge of sympathy for this most desolate of women.Still I suppose that's what happens when you let your moral compass take you off in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Lyall on September 12, 2013, 11:59:53 PM
Chap in front is Angus McBride I think.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Lyall on September 13, 2013, 12:00:43 AM
Great photos Anne 8((()*/
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: John on September 13, 2013, 12:18:59 AM
I think Kate cut a very lonely figure today. Abandoned by her husband, their families and their tapas friends even the hardest of hearts must have felt a twinge of sympathy for this most desolate of women.Still I suppose that's what happens when you let your moral compass take you off in the wrong direction.
Kate arrives accompanied by a close friend and her mother to support her.
Amaral arrives alone with not a single friend or family member to support him.
But IYO it is Kate who 'cuts a lonely figure' and has been 'abandoned'?
If I live to be a hundred - I will never understand the 'logic' of sceptics.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 13, 2013, 08:38:10 AM
That's what you believe, as like your heroine km, you hate him.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Chinagirl on September 13, 2013, 09:45:16 AM
A question for Anne Guedes.
Apparently, at the beginning of proceedings Amaral requested that the hearing be conducted in camera. What were his reasons for this request, and what were the grounds for its rejection?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mo Stache on September 13, 2013, 10:10:29 AM
Amaral wanted publicity for his book. He wanted the world to know that he was right and the McCann's had something to do with Madeleine's death. Amaral agreed to the documentary and several PAID interviews (where is that money!?) Amaral encouraged his supporters to flaunt his material, his theory and his propaganda, but yesterday he made a surprising turn around and didn't want the media at the trial. Very odd indeed. After 8 pages in this thread, still no answer as to why.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 13, 2013, 10:24:58 AM
Kate arrived with Susan Hubbard, do keep up Benice.
Faithlilly - quoted in several newspapers: "Kate McCann arrived for the first day of the libel trial in Lisbon against Mr Amaral accompanied by her mother Susan Healy and filmmaker Emma Loach. The trial began with a failed attempt by lawyers for Mr Amaral to have the media excluded from the courtroom to "preserve the memory of Madeleine", before Susan Hubbard - a friend of the McCanns - took to the stand as the first witness." http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/libel-trial-is-told-of-mccanns-anguish.22141495 "She attended court with her mother, Susan Healy." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24057163
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: faithlilly on September 13, 2013, 10:51:02 AM
Faithlilly - quoted in several newspapers: "Kate McCann arrived for the first day of the libel trial in Lisbon against Mr Amaral accompanied by her mother Susan Healy and filmmaker Emma Loach. The trial began with a failed attempt by lawyers for Mr Amaral to have the media excluded from the courtroom to "preserve the memory of Madeleine", before Susan Hubbard - a friend of the McCanns - took to the stand as the first witness." http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/libel-trial-is-told-of-mccanns-anguish.22141495 "She attended court with her mother, Susan Healy." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24057163
But it's not Kate's mum, it's Susan Hubbard.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mo Stache on September 13, 2013, 10:54:51 AM
Are you referring to the photo's published? Because there were many people there, but only a select few photo's published.
There was video footage on Sky with Martin Brunt being interviewed on the arrival of Kate Mccann and it was mentioned her mother and Emma Loach was with her....he later corrected this on his twitter page to say it was Mrs Hubbard.....it is not the first time journalists have got this wrong, last April when Kate Mccann went to Portugal and was met by Mrs Hubbard, the exact same thing was reported....that she was with her mother! Obviously these journos dont know the difference! @)(++(*
Of course Mrs Healy is one of the witnesses so will be in Portugal
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Carana on September 13, 2013, 12:15:43 PM
All these pages later, and still no explanation as to why Amaral was seeking to exclude the media...
According to some media reports, this took a while to sort out.
For Anne, when she finds time:
- What was the justification? - What were the arguments? - How long did this actually take to sort out and reach a decision?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 13, 2013, 12:37:43 PM
Its all a distraction from the main question - why did Amaral want the press excluded from his trial?
Quite funny really, all these side issues being raised.
I suspect it is because the true reason may not be very palatable.
Time will tell.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Cudge on September 13, 2013, 12:43:41 PM
Indeed it will, because if the true reason isn't palatable why did he not settle before the trial started?
He didn't settle because he did not want to lose face imo. According to one of his staunchest supporters if he loses he will simply appeal and the case will drag on for years and years. Its called justice Portuguese style.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 13, 2013, 01:42:22 PM
Its all a distraction from the main question - why did Amaral want the press excluded from his trial?
Quite funny really, all these side issues being raised.
I suspect it is because the true reason may not be very palatable.
Time will tell.
You talk as if everyone here knows but is not sayng, what an assumption! How would anyone know? Side issues are side issues, topics develop and stray, doesnt mean they do because someone knows but isnt sayng!! Thats whats funny about your post.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 13, 2013, 01:51:03 PM
Amaral knows he has made a mint out of selling a lie and he doesn't want the world to know.
Hence he asked that the case be conducted in camera, and pulled all the 'good luck' messages from his facebook account.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Carana on September 13, 2013, 05:15:16 PM
How are today's proceedings going? I haven't found anything so far.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 13, 2013, 05:21:02 PM
Apparently, at the beginning of proceedings Amaral requested that the hearing be conducted in camera. What were his reasons for this request, and what were the grounds for its rejection?
Repeating this question from yesterday. An answer would be very much appreciated, Anne, particularly the last part underlined here.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 14, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
I haven't read all todays posts but I have copied this video from another thread as it is very relevant.
Mr Amaral's lawyer is very clear about the reason why they wanted the press to be excluded from the hearings and that is because he wants to protect the integrity of the investigation. He also states that the McCanns want a show trial just because they want publicity. There you have it from the horses mouth ladies and gents!!
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: DCI on September 14, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
I haven't read all todays posts but I have copied this video from another thread as it is very relevant.
Mr Amaral's lawyer is very clear about the reason why they wanted the press to be excluded from the hearings and that is because he wants to protect the integrity of the investigation. He also states that the McCanns want a show trial just because they want publicity. There you have it from the horses mouth ladies and gents!!
Have you listened to this Angelo, or just watched it. He's just gone on the record admitting he doesn't know if Madeleine is alive or not, de Santos (he is supposed to be acting for Amaral) and has just cocked up the entire case.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Eleanor on September 14, 2013, 03:31:19 PM
Have you listened to this Angelo, or just watched it. He's just gone on the record admitting he doesn't know if Madeleine is alive or not, de Santos (he is supposed to be acting for Amaral) and has just cocked up the entire case.
This, of course, is debatable. Is an Ex Inspector of The PJ allowed to broadcast and make money from his "Theories", and Statements of "Fact", gained from his time supposedly running an Investigation?
If only he had stopped with his nasty book. But he didn't. He thought that he was invincible. And then went on to say far more damaging things in his Video and Television Interviews, simply because The McCanns weren't actually doing anything at the time. Did he seriously think that he should be allowed to just go on?
Me? I don't know. Portuguese Law is incomprehensible to me. A man who says that he was beaten by Amaral some ten years ago is still waiting for a Hearing.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 04:01:46 PM
Have you listened to this Angelo, or just watched it. He's just gone on the record admitting he doesn't know if Madeleine is alive or not, de Santos (he is supposed to be acting for Amaral) and has just cocked up the entire case.
A very odd statement indeed from Amaral's lawyer
In general defense of his client, he states that the evidence in the criminal case points to Madeleine being dead.
Explaining why Amaral requested the libel trial to be heard 'behind closed doors', he then states that we do not know if Madeleine is dead or alive.
Wonder how much Amaral is paying him?!
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Eleanor on September 14, 2013, 04:30:27 PM
Have you listened to this Angelo, or just watched it. He's just gone on the record admitting he doesn't know if Madeleine is alive or not, de Santos (he is supposed to be acting for Amaral) and has just cocked up the entire case.
What about the dogs.....what about the dogs...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 04:59:10 PM
Perhaps you should refer to the whole quote from the lawyer.
Meanwhile what about the unproven abduction...what about the unproven abduction.. 8((()*/
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 05:20:42 PM
I know I'm loosing my time on trying to make unreasonable people remember reasonable arguments, but there it goes. When the book was launched, June 2008, the author referred that he was only interpreting the data obtained by the investigation, so far (check Tavares de Almeida interim report in mccanfiles). In all the interviews he gave after that he always stated that the investigation had been stopped, it had not been allowed to be concluded. Every time Amaral was questioned about what happened to the child he mentioned that he could only speak about what he had found out until the moment he was distanced from the investigation. Also, as mentioned in the report sent to the Criminal Judge from the Public Ministry by Tavares de Almeida, those were the interpretations of the whole investigative group - portuguese and british. It's very easy now to accuse someone that wants to respect a child that has vanished, and that is most probably dead, but that nobody knows for certain. You should feel more insulted for the lack of decency from the McCann party for wishing to make this, yet again, a public media circus.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Eleanor on September 14, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
I don't understand your point, Elanor. Who's reputation?
Perhaps the Lawyer of Goncalo Amaral cares about his own reputation. Defending a man who has made such damning accusations about two people without proof cannot be easy for him. He cannot possibly say that Goncalo Amaral is correct in his assumptions. Otherwise he also could be guilty of Libel. And so it is much more sensible for him to say that Madeleine could well still be alive, since there is no proof to the contrary. And I thought that this was the point.
I could argue Law with you until the cows come home. Do I think that Amaral had a right to say what he said? of course I do But he is now being called upon to justify what he said. This is The Law.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 05:58:11 PM
Perhaps the Lawyer of Goncalo Amaral cares about his own reputation. Defending a man who has made such damning accusations about two people without proof cannot be easy for him. He cannot possibly say that Goncalo Amaral is correct in his assumptions. Otherwise he also could be guilty of Libel. And so it is much more sensible for him to say that Madeleine could well still be alive, since there is no proof to the contrary. And I thought that this was the point.
I could argue Law with you until the cows come home. Do I think that Amaral had a right to say what he said? of course I do But he is now being called upon to justify what he said. This is The Law.
A lawyer's reputation is based upon how successfully he or she represents clients. Whether the lawyer privately supports or believes the client in their actions / views, and whether or not the client has done something immoral or illegal is irrelevant. Criminals have lawyers defending them, that is their right. The lawyer is not going to be libeled for representing them.
If Amaral's lawyer didn't want the job of defending Amaral he was free to turn it down.
The question here is why this lawyer contradicted himself in mid-sentence, saying first of all that the evidence pointed to Madeleine being dead and that Amaral had every right to state the 'fact' (Amaral's defence), then proceeding to explain his client's request to have the courtroom 'doors closed' on the grounds that Madeleine being alive or dead was something that had not yet been established.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Eleanor on September 14, 2013, 06:58:43 PM
A lawyer's reputation is based upon how successfully he or she represents clients. Whether the lawyer privately supports or believes the client in their actions / views, and whether or not the client has done something immoral or illegal is irrelevant. Criminals have lawyers defending them, that is their right. The lawyer is not going to be libeled for representing them.
If Amaral's lawyer didn't want the job of defending Amaral he was free to turn it down.
The question here is why this lawyer contradicted himself in mid-sentence, saying first of all that the evidence pointed to Madeleine being dead and that Amaral had every right to state the 'fact' (Amaral's defence), then proceeding to explain his client's request to have the courtroom 'doors closed' on the grounds that Madeleine being alive or dead was something that had not yet been established.
Oh, I see. So Madeleine could be dead or alive. And The Court hasn't yet established that small point. Do you think that they likely will, anytime in the near future?
And I have to say that I have never come across a Defence Lawyer who went on camera to say that his client could be wrong. Even if only in mid sentence.
But this isn't actually about that, is it. It's about one man's right to say what he pleases, and then for him to be called upon to prove what he said. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we all know that he cannot do this.
I happen to think that Portugal is still suffering from Salazar, although one might might think that time enough has passed. But who knows about the likes of Amaral. Born and bred into a Fascist Regime. I actually feel sorry for him.
But that is by the by. I don't know if he has harmed The McCanns, or even if he wanted to. Quite possibly he didn't want to. But the silly pillock thought that he could make loads a money. And that alone is disgusting.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 07:09:08 PM
Oh, I see. So Madeleine could be dead or alive. And The Court hasn't yet established that small point. Do you think that they likely will, anytime in the near future?
And I have to say that I have never come across a Defence Lawyer who went on camera to say that his client could be wrong. Even if only in mid sentence.
But this isn't actually about that, is it. It's about one man's right to say what he pleases, and then for him to be called upon to prove what he said. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we all know that he cannot do this.
I happen to think that Portugal is still suffering from Salazar, although one might might think that time enough has passed. But who knows about the likes of Amaral. Born and bred into a Fascist Regime. I actually feel sorry for him.
But that is by the by. I don't know if he has harmed The McCanns, or even if he wanted to. Quite possibly he didn't want to. But the silly pillock thought that he could make loads a money. And that alone is disgusting.
You criticize Amaral for the very thing the Mccanns have done themselves, i.e. make money.
So, logically, apply your criticism to them, after all they are responsible for the chain of events that led to Madeleine's disappearance.
They have also had every opportunity to pass the proceeds of the fund, book sales, serialization rights to help pay for the SY investigation, and have they ?
As from the start they would rather let others pay for their incompetence instead of accepting responsibility themselves.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 07:10:41 PM
Have you listened to this Angelo, or just watched it. He's just gone on the record admitting he doesn't know if Madeleine is alive or not, de Santos (he is supposed to be acting for Amaral) and has just cocked up the entire case.
In your dreams, why be such a drama queen about it? Fret not. The facts are
No one KNOWS for a FACT if she is dead or alive The final CPS or in Portuguese the Public Prosecutors report stated she is more likely dead thou they dont KNOW Amarals lawyer stated the same yesterday Mr Amarals police team concluded at the time this is where the evidence pointed as any police force investigation is entitled to do based on what they know and have and on past experience
BetteR to state facts as they are instead of imagined facts ala Ms Duarte who stated last time round their is PROOF Maddie is alive cos there have been *sightings*! Oh dear!
No reason to get all excited, Im sure this lawyer is not stupid! And by all accounts he is a very good lawyer!
For anyone to suggest he is now changingsomething to cover his back is ludicrous.
So dream on.
And what a gentleman too!
Eta end of the day the mccanns cant prove he was wrong!! They have no case....isabel duarte was reported to have said amaral has no case, err, actuallly, its the mccanns who brought the action, its THEM that have to have a case, duh
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 07:11:02 PM
Oh, I see. So Madeleine could be dead or alive. And The Court hasn't yet established that small point. Do you think that they likely will, anytime in the near future?
And I have to say that I have never come across a Defence Lawyer who went on camera to say that his client could be wrong. Even if only in mid sentence.
But this isn't actually about that, is it. It's about one man's right to say what he pleases, and then for him to be called upon to prove what he said. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we all know that he cannot do this.
I happen to think that Portugal is still suffering from Salazar, although one might might think that time enough has passed. But who knows about the likes of Amaral. Born and bred into a Fascist Regime. I actually feel sorry for him.
But that is by the by. I don't know if he has harmed The McCanns, or even if he wanted to. Quite possibly he didn't want to. But the silly pillock thought that he could make loads a money. And that alone is disgusting.
I'm sure he didn't mean to say that his client was wrong. He just contradicted himself, presumably without thinking.
It is not the purpose of this particular court to decide whether or not Madeleine is alive. This case is a discussion, as you say, on Amaral's right to say as he pleases and to justify his claims.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 07:24:45 PM
This case is a discussion, as you say, on Amaral's right to say as he pleases and to justify his claims.
How can he justify his claim if (as his own legal representative concedes) it is possible Madeleine might be alive?
Amaral's claim is that Madeleine died in the aprtment as the result of a 'tragic accident'.
And a very large part of the investigation (under Amaral's control) devoted itself to exploration of the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered!
I think Dr Amaral is up against it (if he hasn't already caved in).
Still no update at The Times ...
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 07:29:36 PM
Which part of my post do you take issue with, and why?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 14, 2013, 07:35:32 PM
The lawyer says : we do not know whether Madeleine is alive or dead. That's a fact for "we", the public. Nobody, except for the carrier the Smiths saw, can say he/she knows what happened to Madeleine on that night. Mr Amaral never said he knew Madeleine was dead. He said everything pointed to it. When he was dismissed of the investigation, evidence was lacking, particularly a body to start with. Nobody knows if, had he be maintained as a coordinator of the investigation, no evidence would have been gathered all the same.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 07:38:05 PM
The lawyer says : we do not know whether Madeleine is alive or dead. That's a fact for "we", the public. Nobody, except for the carrier the Smiths saw, can say he/she knows what happened to Madeleine on that night. Mr Amaral never said he knew Madeleine was dead. He said everything pointed to it. When he was dismissed of the investigation, evidence was lacking, particularly a body to start with. Nobody knows if, had he be maintained as a coordinator of the investigation, no evidence would have been gathered all the same.
Exactly, if there was no proof, then why get hot and bothered under the collar about it! and then spend sooooo much tme and energy tryng to trash cadaver dogs!!! and failing at every turn, their accolades included.Reminds me of the sayng protest too much...not sure where that saying came from shakespeare maybe
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 07:44:10 PM
The lawyer says : we do not know whether Madeleine is alive or dead. That's a fact for "we", the public. Nobody, except for the carrier the Smiths saw, can say he/she knows what happened to Madeleine on that night. Mr Amaral never said he knew Madeleine was dead. He said everything pointed to it. When he was dismissed of the investigation, evidence was lacking, particularly a body to start with. Nobody knows if, had he be maintained as a coordinator of the investigation, no evidence would have been gathered all the same.
Point 1 of chapter 22 in Amaral's book is a categoric assertion.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 07:48:17 PM
The lawyer says : we do not know whether Madeleine is alive or dead. That's a fact for "we", the public. Nobody, except for the carrier the Smiths saw, can say he/she knows what happened to Madeleine on that night. Mr Amaral never said he knew Madeleine was dead. He said everything pointed to it. When he was dismissed of the investigation, evidence was lacking, particularly a body to start with. Nobody knows if, had he be maintained as a coordinator of the investigation, no evidence would have been gathered all the same.
When someone says "we" he is including himself and no amount of spinning on the forum will change that fact...good job on the reporting
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 07:55:10 PM
This case is a discussion, as you say, on Amaral's right to say as he pleases and to justify his claims.
How can he justify his claim if (as his own legal representative concedes) it is possible Madeleine might be alive?
Amaral's claim is that Madeleine died in the aprtment as the result of a 'tragic accident'.
And a very large part of the investigation (under Amaral's control) devoted itself to exploration of the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered!
I think Dr Amaral is up against it (if he hasn't already caved in).
Still no update at The Times ...
I'm not suggesting he will actually be able to justify his claims. Theoretically he would have to in order to defend himself. In reality he will find it very hard to do so, as will the McCanns.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 08:02:03 PM
In your dreams, why be such a drama queen about it? Fret not. The facts are
No one KNOWS for a FACT if she is dead or alive The final CPS or in Portuguese the Public Prosecutors report stated she is more likely dead thou they dont KNOW Amarals lawyer stated the same yesterday Mr Amarals police team concluded at the time this is where the evidence pointed as any police force investigation is entitled to do based on what they know and have and on past experience
BetteR to state facts as they are instead of imagined facts ala Ms Duarte who stated last time round their is PROOF Maddie is alive cos there have been *sightings*! Oh dear!
No reason to get all excited, Im sure this lawyer is not stupid! And by all accounts he is a very good lawyer!
For anyone to suggest he is now changingsomething to cover his back is ludicrous.
So dream on.
And what a gentleman too!
Eta end of the day the mccanns cant prove he was wrong!! They have no case....isabel duarte was reported to have said amaral has no case, err, actuallly, its the mccanns who brought the action, its THEM that have to have a case, duh
Are you saying that the McCanns have to prove amaral wrong...if so...to what degree of certatinty.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
Doesn't matter about the rest. No amount of spin will change what he said. The important thing is that it is now accepted by Amarals lawyer that Maddie may still be alive. Where does that leave the dogs alerts. Iam not ribbishing the dogs, they are excellent at what they are trained for...finding evidence...at that they are brilliant. In this case they found none which would suggest none was present
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:10:33 PM
When someone says "we" he is including himself and no amount of spinning on the forum will change that fact...good job on the reporting
'We':
You make a good point Davel, but what Anne draws our attention to is also highly significant.
The use of the word 'we' here is primarily theoretical, in that it refers to our collective knowledge (or lack of). 'We', or 'the world as a whole', do not know what happened to Madeleine.
In other words, there is a distinction, not necessarily a contradiction, between the statement 'we do not know..etc.' and Amaral's assertion that he believes Madeleine to be dead. One refers to a state of affairs, and the other to a hypothesis yet to be substantiated.
So perhaps he wasn't contradicting himself after all.. will have to ponder this one
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 14, 2013, 08:12:05 PM
Doesn't matter about the rest. No amount of spin will change what he said. The important thing is that it is now accepted by Amarals lawyer that Maddie may still be alive. Where does that leave the dogs alerts. Iam not ribbishing the dogs, they are excellent at what they are trained for...finding evidence...at that they are brilliant. In this case they found none which would suggest none was present
Please get it right.
The forensics were inconclusive.
So it doesn't rule out something happened to Madeleine.
Now this is for you.
Do you concede the possibility MADELEINE DIED IN THE APARTMENT ?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:14:06 PM
I'm not suggesting he will actually be able to justify his claims. Theoretically he would have to in order to defend himself. In reality he will find it very hard to do so, as will the McCanns.
1 The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
2. They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine
3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.
4. The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.
5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.
And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.
Why not?
Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:15:12 PM
Exactly, if there was no proof, then why get hot and bothered under the collar about it! and then spend sooooo much tme and energy tryng to trash cadaver dogs!!! and failing at every turn, their accolades included.Reminds me of the sayng protest too much...not sure where that saying came from shakespeare maybe
Hamlet's mother no less
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:17:34 PM
1 The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
2. They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine
3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.
4. The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.
5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.
And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.
Why not?
Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.
Lee Rainbow's report?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 08:19:26 PM
So it doesn't rule out something happened to Madeleine.
Now this is for you.
Do you concede the possibility MADELEINE DIED IN THE APARTMENT ?
Absolutely anything is possible. Maddie could have been abducted by the CIA, by aliens, she could have been murdered by her parents. the fact is that you have to examine all possibilities and see where the evidence leads and what is most likely. there is nothing to implicate her parents despite a thorough investigation and sy do not regard them as suspects. Where amaral got it wrong is that he called his book "The truth" and accuses the McCanns of criminal activity .
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 08:21:12 PM
You make a good point Davel, but what Anne draws our attention to is also highly significant.
The use of the word 'we' here is primarily theoretical, in that it refers to our collective knowledge (or lack of). 'We', or 'the world as a whole', do not know what happened to Madeleine.
In other words, there is a distinction, not necessarily a contradiction, between the statement 'we do not know..etc.' and Amaral's assertion that he believes Madeleine to be dead. One refers to a state of affairs, and the other to a hypothesis yet to be substantiated.
So perhaps he wasn't contradicting himself after all.. will have to ponder this one
Sorry but I think your post is absolute tosh
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:23:07 PM
Lee Rainbow's report stating that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime, but issuing advice generic in all investigations of this type that those closest to the victim should be ruled out first.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:24:12 PM
so you don't know. the point I am making is that there are a lot of claims that the MCCanns have to prove the case whereas the truth is that no one really knows
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:28:35 PM
1 The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
2. They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine
3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.
4. The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.
5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.
And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.
Why not?
Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.
I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine
They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.
Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 14, 2013, 08:29:24 PM
I'm not suggesting he will actually be able to justify his claims. Theoretically he would have to in order to defend himself. In reality he will find it very hard to do so, as will the McCanns.
I disagree
Amaral would certainly find it hard ( indeed, impossible ) to 'prove' his claims ...'justifying' them, though, is quite a different thing
He is not required to establish, unquestionably, that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction, but, rather, to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded, given the information available to him
The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are correct, merely that they are not groundless and insupportable
If Amaral brings witnesses ( particularly if they are senior police professionals ) who share his opinion that the most probable explanation for Madeleine's disappearance is that she died in the apartment, then it will add to the premise that he was 'justified' in coming to the conclusions he did
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:32:18 PM
Amaral would certainly find it hard ( indeed, impossible ) to 'prove' his claims ...'justifying' them, though, is quite a different thing
He is not required to establish, unquestionably, that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction, but, rather, to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded, given the information available to him
The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are correct, merely that they are not groundless and insupportable
If Amaral brings witnesses ( particularly if they are senior police professionals ) who share his opinion that the most probable explanation for Madeleine's disappearance is that she died in the apartment, then it will add to the premise that he was 'justified' in coming to the conclusions he did
Could you tell me on what basis you believe the above to be correct
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:38:53 PM
Amaral would certainly find it hard ( indeed, impossible ) to 'prove' his claims ...'justifying' them, though, is quite a different thing
He is not required to establish, unquestionably, that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction, but, rather, to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded, given the information available to him
The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are correct, merely that they are not groundless and insupportable
If Amaral brings witnesses ( particularly if they are senior police professionals ) who share his opinion that the most probable explanation for Madeleine's disappearance is that she died in the apartment, then it will add to the premise that he was 'justified' in coming to the conclusions he did
A good way of putting it, Dr Crane.
BTW I didn't actually say that he had to 'prove' his claims, I said 'justify' . He cannot prove his claims if there is insufficient evidence. But he can try to show that he was reasonable in making his judgements given the information available.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 08:39:25 PM
I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine
They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.
Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.
That post makes no sense to me...if they were guilty doesnt it negate the whole claim?? I mustgo make some chips to eat now.
@Davel, OK, we will have to wait and see
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:45:20 PM
I didn't actually say that he had to 'prove' his claims, I said 'justify' . He cannot prove his claims if there is insufficient evidence. But he can try to show that he was reasonable in making his judgements given the information he had.
Emphasis on the word try
How can he justify not reading John L:owe's report.
Will Stuart Prior's report justify his claim that he knows better than Stuart Prior about forensics?
Or that Prior was humbled (and rattled) into phoning the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?
How will he bluff his way out contradicting the final PJ report which says Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:53:19 PM
That post makes no sense to me...if they were guilty doesnt it negate the whole claim?? I mustgo make some chips to eat now.
@Davel, OK, we will have to wait and see
It's a very pedantic point but I think it's correct.
No official conclusion exists as to what happened to Madeleine and who is and is not guilty. There is absolutely no way that this particular court can work out what has happened, and it does not seek to. That is a matter for formal investigators and a criminal court.
The remit of this court is only to assess the extent of the emotional damage caused to the McCanns by Amaral's book, and the damage done to the search.
We do not necessarily need to know the outcome of the investigation to know that. We may never get as far as nailing a guilty party even if there is a 'conclusion' to the investigation.
If concrete knowledge of the guilty party was a prerequisite for this libel case, the McCanns would have been advised not to take Amaral to court.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 08:55:11 PM
I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine
They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.
Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.
BINGO.
In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses. When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 08:57:39 PM
In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses. When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.
What was the basis of Murat's victory against Correia de Manaha?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
In a libel case, as this one- that unlike the previous against the book is not a criminal (public law) but civil (private law) - it is up to the accuser to make proof of the damage. It has to be factually proven that the publication of the book has caused damage to the physical or psychological health of the accusers, and it cannot be just a hearsay - there should be professional psycho-medical reports and witnesses. When they produce a psychologist that only met the twins once and a lawyer that was with them prior to the publication of the book, I fail to see what they are on about with this trial.
Point is LUZ, You have already shown that you don't have a clue regarding the law in Portugal so I wont be taking any notice of what you say
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 09:04:09 PM
A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court. It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 09:06:51 PM
A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court. It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.
I actually feel a little sorry for you..you don't have aclue do you
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 14, 2013, 09:08:24 PM
What was the basis of Murat's victory against Correia de Manaha?
Good question, I would be interested to know also
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 09:11:43 PM
I remember that in March, this year, 2013, a claim against a journalist that wrote a book "Blood Diamonds: torture and corruption in Angola", by the generals that were directly accused in that book, was immediately dismissed, because in Portugal prevails the freedom of thinking and expression. Let's see if the McCann can corrupt that consecrated principle of our Constitution.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 09:12:40 PM
A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court. It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.
perhaps you should read the following, written by a solicitor
REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech).
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 09:46:51 PM
It's a very pedantic point but I think it's correct.
No official conclusion exists as to what happened to Madeleine and who is and is not guilty. There is absolutely no way that this particular court can work out what has happened, and it does not seek to. That is a matter for formal investigators and a criminal court.
The remit of this court is only to assess the extent of the emotional damage caused to the McCanns by Amaral's book, and the damage done to the search.
We do not necessarily need to know the outcome of the investigation to know that. We may never get as far as nailing a guilty party even if there is a 'conclusion' to the investigation.
If concrete knowledge of the guilty party was a prerequisite for this libel case, the McCanns would have been advised not to take Amaral to court.
but thats like sayng the mccanns could have been involved, but theyve been libelled, (upset by x y z anyway by a police conclusion in the case, the search hampered if there ws no search to be in reality) just in case they werent, sorry, computer says no @)(++(*
im sure the courts are less into semantics than that, hopefully anyway
goodnight SH
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 14, 2013, 09:48:48 PM
A Supreme Court has determined that the book was not libelous. That was the ultimate level of a Court decision in Portugal. There is no way that any action taken against that book on a lower instance (a first instance Civil Court) would prevail against the Supreme Court. It's absolutely legitimate to try to obtain a compensation for damage suffered, but for that you have to prove such damages.
No it didn't!
It didn't consider the question of libel at all.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 09:50:24 PM
REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech).
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 14, 2013, 10:07:47 PM
perhaps you should read the following, written by a solicitor
REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech).
I am sorry you are so misinformed, but it will not be me that is going to correct you. Google is your friend.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 10:27:42 PM
I am sorry you are so misinformed, but it will not be me that is going to correct you. Google is your friend.
this isn't from google its from a very well respected uk solicitor(ex)
REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedome of expression and freedom of speech).
I think even you may have heard of him..oh the irony
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Redblossom on September 14, 2013, 11:09:52 PM
this isn't from google its from a very well respected uk solicitor(ex)
REPLY: Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not? (I would add that of course the Lisbon Civil Court can hardly ignore some of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, such as their frequent references to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on freedome of expression and freedom of speech).
I think even you may have heard of him..oh the irony
Maybe you haven't noticed, but UK Law is not applied in Portugal - we are not Gibraltar.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: puglove on September 14, 2013, 11:10:27 PM
Please, guys..I know it's Saturday night, and I must admit that "incontinence is not a laughing matter" made me smile, but I'm trying to have a Rumpole marathon on youtube, and all I'm getting are the loud clicks as you lot report each other. You've just ruined a summing-up in a messy divorce. Be nice, or suck it up. Thanking you.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2013, 11:16:25 PM
JP has asked why Amaral wanted proceedings conducted in camera.
My guess would be damage limitation.
He doesn't want his risible "thesis" exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny ...
I've been pondering this question for a while and the only rational explanation I can see is, in fact, the one given by Amaral's lawyer ... that the integrity of the current joint investigation between Scotland Yard and the Portuguese police needed to be protected
Afterall, Scotland Yard advised Kate McCann not to attend the trial as the inevitable media circus might harm the investigation ... that is correct, I presume, since it has been repeated in the press several times now without any rebuttal from the McCanns
I really can not see that Amaral wanted the media excluded because, as you suggest, 'he doesn't want his risable thesis exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny'
If that were the case ... if he was fully aware that his case was so hopeless that he dare not let the press witness it ... then surely he would have accepted ANY out of court settlement the McCanns offered
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 15, 2013, 01:29:02 AM
I've been pondering this question for a while and the only rational explanation I can see is, in fact, the one given by Amaral's lawyer ... that the integrity of the current joint investigation between Scotland Yard and the Portuguese police needed to be protected
Afterall, Scotland Yard advised Kate McCann not to attend the trial as the inevitable media circus might harm the investigation ... that is correct, I presume, since it has been repeated in the press several times now without any rebuttal from the McCanns
I really can not see that Amaral wanted the media excluded because, as you suggest, 'he doesn't want his risable thesis exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny'
If that were the case ... if he was fully aware that his case was so hopeless that he dare not let the press witness it ... then surely he would have accepted ANY out of court settlement the McCanns offered
Any attempt to interpret Mr Amaral as somebody else than a cop is doomed to failure. If any one feels bound to understand Mr Amaral's position, I can't but recommend to read "the pledge" by Friedrich Dürrenmatt.
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 15, 2013, 09:53:44 AM
Any attempt to interpret Mr Amaral as somebody else than a cop is doomed to failure. If any one feels bound to understand Mr Amaral's position, I can't but recommend to read "the pledge" by Friedrich Dürrenmatt.
Of course we all see him as a cop...a dishonest cop..but still a cop
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Luz on September 16, 2013, 01:11:50 PM
Of course we all see him as a cop...a dishonest cop..but still a cop
What grounds do you have to call him dishonest? He has a clean service sheet and is very highly considered by his colleagues and by the portuguese population. Coming from a McCann advocate your adjective is incredible! What proof do you have that they were responsible parents? What proof have you that they are telling the truth? What proof have you that they are totally innocent apart from them saying so?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
What grounds do you have to call him dishonest? He has a clean service sheet and is very highly considered by his colleagues and by the portuguese population. Coming from a McCann advocate your adjective is incredible! What proof do you have that they were responsible parents? What proof have you that they are telling the truth? What proof have you that they are totally innocent apart from them saying so?
8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on September 16, 2013, 01:17:52 PM
What grounds do you have to call him dishonest? He has a clean service sheet and is very highly considered by his colleagues and by the portuguese population. Coming from a McCann advocate your adjective is incredible! What proof do you have that they were responsible parents? What proof have you that they are telling the truth? What proof have you that they are totally innocent apart from them saying so?
Criminal conviction?
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: ferryman on September 16, 2013, 01:19:07 PM
I've been pondering this question for a while and the only rational explanation I can see is, in fact, the one given by Amaral's lawyer ... that the integrity of the current joint investigation between Scotland Yard and the Portuguese police needed to be protected
Afterall, Scotland Yard advised Kate McCann not to attend the trial as the inevitable media circus might harm the investigation ... that is correct, I presume, since it has been repeated in the press several times now without any rebuttal from the McCanns
I really can not see that Amaral wanted the media excluded because, as you suggest, 'he doesn't want his risable thesis exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny'
If that were the case ... if he was fully aware that his case was so hopeless that he dare not let the press witness it ... then surely he would have accepted ANY out of court settlement the McCanns offered
I think we've landed the (proffered) answer to the question.
Amaral's lawyer accepts Madeleine might be alive, and asked that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine.
Hnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
On the balance of probabilities she is no longer alive. >@@(*&)
I've responded to this in another thread, allow me to repeat and reinforce it here but now using the man's own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrhqD20suVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrhqD20suVU)
What he is referring to is in the Archival Report by the Procuradoria Geral da Republica (the Republic’s Prosecutor (José de Magalhães e Menezes)/the Joint General Prosecutor (João Melchior Gomes) in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4645-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
Title: Re: In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.
Post by: stephen25000 on September 16, 2013, 01:38:12 PM