Where Is Amaral's Ace He Promised

[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 ?

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

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

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

'Costs'  are only of import when you lose though,  so that would only be a consideration if the McCanns were concerned about the possibility of  losing  at trial,  wouldn't it ?

I would think that an apology would not be sufficient  ...  I would think that an assurance that the 'libel'  will not be repeated in future would be an absolute  'written in blood'  requirement of any settlement

Without that  ( gagging order )  any  'settlement'  would be worthless

[Eleanor]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

[icabodcrane]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said  ...  he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true,  based on the evidence he was privy to

I may be wrong,  but that is my understanding 

Whether or not the  'evidence'  he was privy to supports his case,  is something we do not know at this point  .. we'll have  to wait and see 

It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful,  I know  ...  but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in   believing  they were involved is quite a different thing

[Eleanor]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said  ...  he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true,  based on the evidence he was privy to

I may be wrong,  but that is my understanding 

Whether or not the  'evidence'  he was privy to supports his case,  is something we do not know at this point  .. we'll have  to wait and see 

It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful,  I know  ...  but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in   believing  they were involved is quite a different thing

Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case.  But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them.  This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts.  And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.

[icabodcrane]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said  ...  he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true,  based on the evidence he was privy to

I may be wrong,  but that is my understanding 

Whether or not the  'evidence'  he was privy to supports his case,  is something we do not know at this point  .. we'll have  to wait and see 

It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful,  I know  ...  but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in   believing  they were involved is quite a different thing

Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case.  But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them.  This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts.  And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.

 I agree that,  properly,  he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left  ...  he  was  though,  without doubt  ...  and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial  (   whether he should or not )  ...  and will have witnesses to call in that respect

[Eleanor]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said  ...  he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true,  based on the evidence he was privy to

I may be wrong,  but that is my understanding 

Whether or not the  'evidence'  he was privy to supports his case,  is something we do not know at this point  .. we'll have  to wait and see 

It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful,  I know  ...  but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in   believing  they were involved is quite a different thing

Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case.  But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them.  This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts.  And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.

 I agree that,  properly,  he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left  ...  he  was  though,  without doubt  ...  and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial  (   whether he should or not )  ...  and will have witnesses to call in that respect

He carried that ill gotten knowledge into his book which he used to make money.  And if he is going to produce witnesses to this effect then they will be saying that they gave him information to which he was not entitled.  So they can kiss goodbye to their further careers in The PJ.
Do you think that they will be that stupid?

[icabodcrane]

Icabod. if The Mccanns win then that will be enough.  And there are two sets of Lawyers here, both of whom deserve to be paid by someone or another.  And doubt not that they will be, even above all else.  And I cannot think of one good reason why they shouldn't be.

I have no idea of who will win because I don't know how Portugal will view the right of any one man to libel another without proof.  But Portugal does have the same Constitution as every other European Country, which encompasses the rights of those who are libelled.

Amaral has absolutely no proof of what he has said.

I don't think that Amaral has to 'prove' what he said  ...  he just has to prove that he believes what he said is true,  based on the evidence he was privy to

I may be wrong,  but that is my understanding 

Whether or not the  'evidence'  he was privy to supports his case,  is something we do not know at this point  .. we'll have  to wait and see 

It wasn't enough to convince a prosecutor that a charge against the McCanns would be successful,  I know  ...  but whether it is enough to justify a senior detective in   believing  they were involved is quite a different thing

Only for so long as he was employed by The PJ, during the limited time that he was involved in this Case.  But The PJ would not allow him to voice his opinions publicly while he was still employed by them.  This is why he retired.
He is now just an ordinary citizen who quite disgracefully used his limited knowledge to make money at a time when he supposedly was not a party to the full facts.  And if he was then he jolly well should not have been.

 I agree that,  properly,  he should not have been informed of the details of the investigation after he left  ...  he  was  though,  without doubt  ...  and he carries that knowledge into the up-coming libel trial  (   whether he should or not )  ...  and will have witnesses to call in that respect

He carried that ill gotten knowledge into his book which he used to make money.  And if he is going to produce witnesses to this effect then they will be saying that they gave him information to which he was not entitled.  So they can kiss goodbye to their further careers in The PJ.
Do you think that they will be that stupid?

I don't think it works like that Eleanor

Amaral can call any witnesses he chooses,  and as long as they tell the truth under oath then what is wrong with that  ?  ...  that is where justice is found  ...  in truth

Don't you agree ?

[Eleanor]

Oh, indeed I do, Icabod.  But what truth will they be telling?  It will only be their opinion after all.  They don't have any proof either.  So where is The Truth?

And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive.  Not looking good, is it.

[icabodcrane]

Oh, indeed I do, Icabod.  But what truth will they be telling?  It will only be their opinion after all.  They don't have any proof either.  So where is The Truth?

And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive.  Not looking good, is it.

However it is  'looking'  I have no objection to any witness offering evidence under oath  ...  which ever  side   they are on

That is what  law courts provide us with   ... an arena in which  evidence is viewed dispassionately and fairly

I'm looking forward to this one   (  although I have always felt,  and still feel,   it will never actually go ahead )

[Eleanor]

Oh, indeed I do, Icabod.  But what truth will they be telling?  It will only be their opinion after all.  They don't have any proof either.  So where is The Truth?

And I don't think we want to go into what Isobel Duarte is likely to do with Paiva, or any other of Amaral's cohorts, most of whom are Arguidos themselves for various nefarious reasons.
And then there is that man whose name I can never remember who testified at The Book Trial who admitted that there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive.  Not looking good, is it.

However it is  'looking'  I have no objection to any witness offering evidence under oath  ...  which ever  side   they are on

That is what  law courts provide us with   ... an arena in which  evidence is viewed dispassionately and fairly

I'm looking forward to this one   (  although I have always felt,  and still feel,   it will never actually go ahead )

Unfortunately for Amaral Libel Trials require proof, and there is none..

[Luz]

In a libel case in Portugal, it is the one that accuses that has to prove that he/she/they/it have been harmed or damaged by the defendant.

Why do you think the McCann attempted an agreement out of Court?

They have no way to prove what they allege. And furthermore they fear the Courts as the Devil fears the Crux.

[Luz]

Amaral's Ace is ready, as we say in Portugal "deixa-os pousar (let them land)...

[debunker]

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

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

Not necessarily.

The first trial was about what is called Prior Restraint- could a publisher be required to not publish a possible defamatory item. The answer was no.

The second trial is about defamation and personal injury and will consider different matters entirely.

In the USA there is a total ban on any Prior Restraint, yet libel judgments are still made.

[debunker]

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

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

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

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

Cite please for the penalty for 'wasting time'. Another of your unsupported fairy tales again?

[debunker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was not vindicated. The decision was that Prior Restraint was not a possibility. As noted above, defamation is yet to be assessed and proved or disproved.