Why now? Are the latest developments coincidental or because of the libel trial?

[Mr Gray]

I have read his book, watched his documentary video and also read/watched a lot of his media performances.

My view of the trial (from what has been reported) is that he has conceded libel and the only matter before the court is the level of damages - hence the type of witnesses that are being heard.

The post makes so much sense and would in fact explain a lot of other things

[Lyall]

I have read his book, watched his documentary video and also read/watched a lot of his media performances.

My view of the trial (from what has been reported) is that he has conceded libel and the only matter before the court is the level of damages - hence the type of witnesses that are being heard.

And the other defendants? >@@(*&)

The ones who will have had lawyers check before publication and transmission of the documentary. They are not amateurs in courtrooms.

[ferryman]

The post makes so much sense and would in fact explain a lot of other things

It would -- not least Amaral's lawyer's extraordinary admission at the beginning of the trial that Madeleine could be alive -- and his submission that proceedings be in camera to protect her.

I still can't fathom how that didn't lead to an instant collapse of Amaral's defence.

[Victoria]

The post makes so much sense and would in fact explain a lot of other things

Yes, I have to agree. There is little doubt that the McCanns will win their case, the only question to resolve will be the level of damages.

[AnneGuedes]

you only need to read the reports to understand that the argument that mr amaral in someway damaged the search for madeleine is so far from the truth to be laughable.   the mccanns ran away home when the going got tuff and that is what damaged the search for madeleine.  they abandoned her in her hour of need and shame on them for doing so.


ps  and now they want to blame someone else.

And that was really an hour of need because data seemed to point to the abduction of a dead body. Rejecting the idea without examining carefully the data with the PJ, and in order to resuscitate her, they started to inundate the planet with a virtual Madeleine, regularly aged for the sake of plausibility, when in fact they had buried her first with their refusing to collaborate and then with their hiring a series of crooks.
The case is reopened and the focus is on the abductor : QED.

[imustpointout]

because data seemed to point to the abduction of a dead body

I am not sure that anyone can "abduct" a dead body.

[AnneGuedes]

It would -- not least Amaral's lawyer's extraordinary admission at the beginning of the trial that Madeleine could be alive -- and his submission that proceedings be in camera to protect her.

I still can't fathom how that didn't lead to an instant collapse of Amaral's defence.

Ferryman, when will you realise that genuine lawyers are neutral. They defend the position of their client, whatever that position is.
I spoke to the lawyers, there's only one who has a personal opinion about this case, the others hardly know it and mainly aren't interested in it.

[Eleanor]

It would -- not least Amaral's lawyer's extraordinary admission at the beginning of the trial that Madeleine could be alive -- and his submission that proceedings be in camera to protect her.

I still can't fathom how that didn't lead to an instant collapse of Amaral's defence.

I think it is something to do with Amaral's right to say whatever he likes without a scrap of proof.  Free Speach, in other words.

I have no idea if he will win or lose.  But I do know that Portugal will live to regret a can of worms if he wins.  Imagine the back lash from that.  They will all be at it.

[Lyall]

I think it is something to do with Amaral's right to say whatever he likes without a scrap of proof.  Free Speach, in other words.

I have no idea if he will win or lose.  But I do know that Portugal will live to regret a can of worms if he wins.  Imagine the back lash from that.  They will all be at it.

Cheers Mr Parsons

But you're right. That's the moment you'd see the real '[ censored word ]s' in action.

[imustpointout]

Cheers Mr Parsons

But you're right. That's the moment you'd see the real '[ censored word ]s' in action.

odd that a self confessed [ censored word ] is expressing doubt on another thread. Maybe he/she is not "real"?

[Lyall]

odd that a self confessed p...... is expressing doubt on another thread. Maybe he/she is not "real"?

I think you're misreading that post

[Eleanor]

Remember Napoleon

Which Napoleon?

Sorry, I need to know so I can make some sense of this post.  If at all possible.

[Benita]

Cheers Mr Parsons

But you're right. That's the moment you'd see the real '[ censored word ]s' in action.

and as luz would say ...dream on ...