Where Is Amaral's Ace He Promised

[Rachel Granada]

Amaral has no "ace".  He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007?  He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.

thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it

I see.  So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, we shall see soon

Indeed.  We shall see soon who has been telling the truth.

[Redblossom]

Amaral has no "ace".  He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007?  He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.

thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it

I see.  So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, we shall see soon

Indeed.  We shall see soon who has been telling the truth.

mr Amaral was vindicated last time as doing so, so where does that leave the libel trial? It isnt based on facts that writ but allegations which cant be proved, slam dunk not going anywhere IMO, last word

[icabodcrane]

Amaral has no "ace".  He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007?  He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.

thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it

I see.  So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?

That would be a PR disaster

If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral

That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine

If Amaral doesn't go for it,  however,  they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest

How they'd  spin that, though, I can't imagine 

[DCI]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURAT+MOTHER'S+FURY%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Shocked+Jenny+says+Maddie+suspect+was...-a0166903584

MURAT MOTHER'S FURY; EXCLUSIVE: Shocked Jenny says Maddie suspect was with her all the time My son never changed his alibi. He is a scapegoat for police failings.


Byline: RACHAEL BLETCHLY in Praia da Luz 

THE mother of Maddie suspect Robert Murat last night broke her silence to blast claims her son had changed his alibi over the tot's abduction.

And she is growing increasingly concerned at the Portuguese police handling of the hunt for the lost four-year-old.

Sources on the Algarve claim Murat, 33, told cops he was with his girlfriend at the time Madeleine McCann was seized 12 weeks ago.

They allege he later switched stories and said he had been with his mum Jenny.

But furious Jenny, 71, told relatives: "My son has NEVER changed his alibi.

"He has ALWAYS maintained he was with me when Madeleine went missing and he has never told police anything else. It is absolute nonsense what is being said.

"Robert is being made a scapegoat for the police failings in finding out what happened to Madeleine. It is yet another example of what Robert has said being twisted and distorted to make him look bad" The anguished pensioner insists her son is "100 per cent innocent".


And she revealed she had unearthed a new line of inquiry when she and a friend reported a gang of suspicious strangers to police - days before she knew her son was in the frame for the shocking crime.

But Jenny claimed the lead - centred on a house less than two miles from where Madeleine was grabbed - was IGNORED for weeks by detectives.

And she accused them of not acting on it urgently because Murat is their only suspect and she is his only alibi.

Jenny told a family member: "I know my son had nothing to do with this and I can't understand why people say they saw him near the McCanns' apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

"He was with me all night. He didn't go out. That is the truth.

"Robert has never changed his alibi - it's utter nonsense.

"We both have told the police exactly the same thing and that's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it seems no one wants to believe what I'm saying.

"They think because I'm Robert's mum I must be covering up for him.

"That's why they poo-pooed my suspicions about the strangers I reported, even though someone else shared my concerns."

Jenny added: "I pray Madeleine is found soon - for her parents' sake and for Robert's.

"It's the fairytale we dream of because only then will he be able to clear his name.

"But I can't help thinking if the time and effort focused on damning my son had been put into searching for Maddie, we might have her back by now."

Widow Jenny is banned by Portuguese secrecy laws from talking directly about the police inquiry into Maddie's disappearance from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz on May 3.

But she and her family were incensed by reports Murat's alibi has been "shattered" by a string of witnesses.

They include holidaymaking pals Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachel Oldfield, who confronted property developer Murat at a police station meeting two weeks ago.

The trio - friends of Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate - claimed they saw Murat "peeking" into the apartment the night the little girl vanished. They said they recognised his "dodgy" right eye - caused by a detached retina - despite poor street lighting in the area at the time.

But Jenny insists her son did NOT leave their house 100 yards from the apartment where Madeleine had been sleeping with two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie while their parents ate out at a nearby restaurant.

Her sister-in-law Sally Eveleigh, 56, told The People: "Jenny feels terribly frustrated no one will accept her word for this. She says she IS the alibi - so how can it be shattered?

"She and Robert remember hearing a police siren go past at some point that night. But it wasn't enough to make them go out to see what was happening and they went to bed.

"I suppose the implication is Rob snuck out later - but that's not true.

"The first they knew about it was when a friend rang in the morning and told them to turn on the TV news."

As a huge manhunt was launched for the kidnapper, Jenny remembered seeing three strangers - a couple in their 30s and a woman in her 50s - at a large isolated house nearby.

She had spotted the building - called Casa Ao Pescareza - while walking her dog along a coastal path.

Sally said: "Jenny was intrigued because they looked like gipsies or travellers and were driving a clapped-out old red car with a British number plate. They looked out of place in this grand house with its big drive and swimming pool.
"But they also seemed to have a string of visitors - men in smart suits driving plush new cars like Mercedes.

"On one occasion the older woman told Jenny they always came to Luz in summer and were staying four months.

"She spoke perfect English but Jenny thought she had a French or possibly Middle-Eastern accent.

"Then two days after Maddie vanished Jenny was walking down that way again and noticed the house was shut up and deserted.

"There was no sign of the trio after that - even though they had said they would be there all summer."

Jenny jotted her recollections on a piece of paper which was passed to police.

She also gave them the name of a pal who had shared her suspicions about the "odd" tenants.

The People, which has seen Jenny's notes, has learnt cops did not contact the friend for two months.

Sally said: "People will probably say that Jenny is clutching at straws.

"But she reported it to police a couple of days after Madeleine vanished and more than a week before anyone knew Robert would be questioned."

Divorced Murat - whose four-year-old daughter Sofia is the image of Madeleine - is aware his mother told cops about her suspicions.

But he is banned from discussing the investigation while a suspect.

DNA tests are said to have shown he was not the stranger whose genetic traces were found in the McCanns' flat.

But Murat - who is dating German Michaela Walczuch - may have to wait 18 months before he is formally cleared of being a suspect.

Pals say he's the victim of the "biggest character assassination in history".

Meanwhile, Kate and Gerry - from Rothley, Leics - spent yesterday with friends at an Algarve villa.

They are planning a series of events to mark 100 days if Madeleine is still missing on August 11.

Relatives say they have been hurt by renewed criticism for leaving their children alone in their apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

But a source said: "They can't waste their energy on these cruel slurs."

'Robert is 100percent innocent'

r.bletchly@people.co.uk

CAPTION(S):

ANGUISH: Jenny says son never left house; SUSPECT: Murat was picked up 11 days after Maddie went missing; GRIEF: Gerry, Kate and the villa Jenny told cops about

[Rachel Granada]

Amaral has no "ace".  He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007?  He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.

thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it

I see.  So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?

That would be a PR disaster

If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral

That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine

If Amaral doesn't go for it,  however,  they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest

How they'd  spin that, though, I can't imagine

Hi icabodcrane and thanks for your input.  I am of the opinion that the McCanns, as plaintiffs, could just simply drop the action and walk away and perhaps they couldn't care less about "spin"-  this action is about stopping Amaral and his lies.  You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.  The truth is that none of us really knows... we shall find out in due course. 

[icabodcrane]

Amaral has no "ace".  He was removed from the case at less then a third of the way through... so what could he possibly "know" later than early October 2007?  He is going to get the floor wiped with him in court. He should have done the decent thing and slunk away in Oct 2007 instead of trying to line his own pockets on the back of this tragedy.

thats what you were saying three years ago and the floor was wiped with the mccanns at the book trial and after, based on that result, have zilch chance of winning and they know it

I see.  So why have the McCanns not simply withdrawn the libel action and walked away?

That would be a PR disaster

If they really do want out of the libel trial, then I suppose their best option is to keep trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Amaral

That way they can spin it as a compromise they were willing to make so they can focuss all their attention on the search for Madeleine

If Amaral doesn't go for it,  however,  they may well have to just drop the action and walk away as you suggest

How they'd  spin that, though, I can't imagine

Hi icabodcrane and thanks for your input.  I am of the opinion that the McCanns, as plaintiffs, could just simply drop the action and walk away and perhaps they couldn't care less about "spin"-  this action is about stopping Amaral and his lies.  You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.  The truth is that none of us really knows... we shall find out in due course.

I think PR is extremely important to the McCanns ...  hence the employment of Clarence Mitchell  (  who is just a spin doctor after all is said and done )

I would be interested to know what terms for an out of court settlement they offered Amaral  ( which were not to his liking it appears )  ...  I should think, at a minimum, they would require a   public retraction of his claim that they staged Madeleine's abduction and disposed of her body

What do you think would be absolutely non-negotiable to the Mccanns in any settlement with Amaral ?

[Eleanor]

Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front.  Although you are wrong, of course.  But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front.  Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.

You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know.  Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial.  The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one.  Or he didn't.  Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial.  And in the end, whatever happens,  it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person.  It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.

[registrar]

Amaral of course never had an ace

Like most on here I too watched the fillum based on his book

The 'ace' in that bit of fillum - appeared to be a rather dodgery old gentleman - going on ad nauseam about
lock mechanisms and such much

T'was more like a Youtube DIY video - I nodded off

Amaral does not do aces or smoking guns - damp squibs are more his thing

And I bet he wishes himself to have kept a dignified silence after having been booted off the enquiry rather
than trying to become a celeb

Amaral has been looking ill, very ill for some time now

[Eleanor]

Amaral of course never had an ace

Like most on here I too watched the fillum based on his book

The 'ace' in that bit of fillum - appeared to be a rather dodgery old gentleman - going on ad nauseam about
lock mechanisms and such much

T'was more like a Youtube DIY video - I nodded off

Amaral does not do aces or smoking guns - damp squibs are more his thing

And I bet he wishes himself to have kept a dignified silence after having been booted off the enquiry rather
than trying to become a celeb

Amaral has been looking ill, very ill for some time now

And I am really sad that he is looking so ill.  But I don't expect anyone to believe that.

[icabodcrane]

Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front.  Although you are wrong, of course.  But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front.  Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.

You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know.  Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial.  The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one.  Or he didn't.  Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial.  And in the end, whatever happens,  it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person.  It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.

I have no interest in Bennett who had no  business setting himself up as some sort of champion of the opposition   ...  he  had no direct personal interest in the case and no insider knowledge that set him apart from the rest of us   ...  small fry

Not so Amaral

You are right,  though,  when you say there is no absolute proof that it was the McCanns who approached Amaral  for an out of court settlement  (  I was going by reports in the Potuguese press and TV which the  McCanns have not denied ) 

In any event though  (  whether it was the McCanns who wanted to call off the libel trial, or if it was Amaral )  what do you think would be the absolute minimum the McCanns would require of Amaral in any out of court settlement ?

[registrar]

humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...

for approaching the case of a missing child

with a cavalier, closed mind

[icabodcrane]

humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...

for approaching the case of a missing child

with a cavalier, closed mind

So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he  'takes it back'  ?

[registrar]

humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...

for approaching the case of a missing child

with a cavalier, closed mind

So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he  'takes it back'  ?

Don't regurgitate my post and ever so slightly try to put your 6th form spin on it

My post is quite clear 

[Eleanor]

Hi, Icabod, you are beginning to look half decent on the debate front.  Although you are wrong, of course.  But then I have only ever been fighting on the Innocent until proven Guilty front.  Never quite so absolute as Debunker, but then most people aren't.

You simply cannot assume that The McCanns wanted or sought a settlement because we just don't know.  Personallyl, I think that Amaral was hoping for a better outcome of Mr. Bennett's Trial.  The two of them have been ducking and diving for nearly two years now, but Amaral beat the gun on that one.  Or he didn't.  Depending on how you look at it.
Whatever, The McCanns retained the right to go to Trial.  And in the end, whatever happens,  it is only about the right of one person to say unproven things about another person.  It will never make anyone guilty of the death of a child.

I have no interest in Bennett who had no  business setting himself up as some sort of champion of the opposition   ...  he  had no direct personal interest in the case and no insider knowledge that set him apart from the rest of us   ...  small fry

Not so Amaral

You are right,  though,  when you say there is no absolute proof that it was the McCanns who approached Amaral  for an out of court settlement  (  I was going by reports in the Potuguese press and TV which the  McCanns have not denied ) 

In any event though  (  whether it was the McCanns who wanted to call off the libel trial, or if it was Amaral )  what do you think would be the absolute minimum the McCanns would require of Amaral in any out of court settlement ?

How can I say?  I don't know how pissed off they are with him.  But they have never struck me as vindictive people.

Obviously the Lawyer's Costs have to be met.  But apart from that I would say that The McCanns would settle for an apology and a minimal payment, just so as no one gets the wrong idea.
If anything then Amaral would balk at the apology.  His money is gone because there are far too many other people queueing up for what is left.

I would have made a guess at 300,000 Euros.  But now I would go for 30,000 Euros.  Enough to make it smart.  And still leave enough for the other little people that he has robbed.

[icabodcrane]

humility and to be man enough to state that he was wrong all along...

for approaching the case of a missing child

with a cavalier, closed mind

So you think the minimum the McCanns would settle out of court for is an admission by Amaral is that his thesis was entirely wrong and he  'takes it back'  ?

Don't regurgitate my post and ever so slightly try to put your 6th form spin on it

My post is quite clear

That's not what I was doing

Your post wasn't  clear  to me   ...  I was asking,  therefore, in order to clarify  ...  would you expect,  as a minimum requirement by the McCanns for an out of court settlement,  that Amaral admit his thesis was entirely wrong,  and he 'takes it back ' ? 

Would you ?