The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial trial now set for September 2013

[Mo Stache]

€250k for each child?  That doesn't seem logical to me in a defamation case.  For a start how can you defame two youngsters who can barely read and write and secondly how can you defame a child who has been missing for over six years.  It all appears to be very symbolic if not shambolic to me.  Am I missing something here?  8-)(--)

Maybe one of the Portuguese posters are able to explain this in the light of the Portuguese law. Surely if it weren't possible then Ms Duarte wouldn't have been able to lodge that claim in the first place?

[John]

Don't let the hate of the McCanns get in the way of the truth John.

The McCanns are suing Amaral because he lied.

The money claimed is irrelevant.

Would it not have been easier to have silenced him without the added burden of £1m?

[icabodcrane]

Don't let the hate of the McCanns get in the way of the truth John.

The McCanns are suing Amaral because he lied.

The money claimed is irrelevant.

There is nothing  'irrelevant'  about a million pounds !

That business about Amaral being sued because  'he lied'  though  ....   as far as I can see the only case put forward by the McCanns is related to the  'damage'  they suffered because of Amaral's book

What  'lies'  have they specificly accused him of in court this week  ...  and what evidence did they produce to prove he lied   ? 

[AnneGuedes]

Nobody in court (yet) said Mr Amaral lied. You can't say such a thing without proving it. What they say is that Mr Amaral's allegations harmed them and hence their children.

[John]

Santos was very careful outside court to say that Gonçalo only related the evidence in his book and it was on this that the thesis was established.  He also stated that it was unknown as to whether Madeleine was alive or dead which sort of flies in the face of the claim that the book says she is dead?  Confused or what?   

Does the book say she is dead or does it say she might be dead?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Santos was very careful outside court to say that Gonçalo only related the evidence in his book and it was on this that the thesis was established.  He also stated that it was unknown as to whether Madeleine was alive or dead which sort of flies in the face of the claim that the book says she is dead?  Confused or what?   

Does the book say she is dead or does it say she might be dead?

It is confusing on the face of it.

But there is a distinction between having proof that Madeleine is dead or alive, and being in possession of evidence which upon reasonable evaluation would point strongly to one scenario or the other. Amaral only needs to show that his thesis is reasonable given the information he has at hand.

Having cast iron proof cannot be part of the trial, because this court does not know what happened to Madeleine, nor does it have the means to work it out. It is incapable of assessing whether Amaral's conclusions are correct or not. So given that proof or concrete knowledge of what happened is not a prerequisite here, it is not a contradiction that Santos alludes to the fact that we don't know what happened for sure.

[AnneGuedes]

Santos was very careful outside court to say that Gonçalo only related the evidence in his book and it was on this that the thesis was established.  He also stated that it was unknown as to whether Madeleine was alive or dead which sort of flies in the face of the claim that the book says she is dead?  Confused or what?   

Does the book say she is dead or does it say she might be dead?

Well I think, John, that "she's dead" or "she's alive" are nothing but declarations of faith. But when one asks you "do you know if she's dead or alive ?", what can you answer if not that you don't know ?
The fact a police officer says "everything points to the death of the child in the flat", an authority argument, casts certainly a doubt on the McCanns. But it's not the only element and the McCanns had been much more efficient on the topic of innocence if they had suggested SY to start the review with a reconstruction the Portuguese way, i.e with the protagonists.

[Chinagirl]

Of course neither Amaral nor the McCanns (or any person commentating on this case) KNOW whether Madeleine is dead or alive.  However, in the absence of a body or any conclusive evidence pointing to death, then surely the only moral stance is to consider the possibility of her being alive.

This is the basis on which her parents have conducted their campaign, and the primary reason for those of us who support their efforts to find her.  It is this aspect that Amaral has rejected in his "thesis" and why he is being sued.  In my opinion, it is utterly immoral to try to persuade people that the child is dead and therefore not worth looking for when there is even a slim possibility that she could still be alive.

Until/unless there is incontrovertible proof that Madeleine is dead, the ONLY moral position to take is that she could be alive and living somewhere, therefore the search for her MUST continue.

[icabodcrane]

Of course neither Amaral nor the McCanns (or any person commentating on this case) KNOW whether Madeleine is dead or alive.  However, in the absence of a body or any conclusive evidence pointing to death, then surely the only moral stance is to consider the possibility of her being alive.

This is the basis on which her parents have conducted their campaign, and the primary reason for those of us who support their efforts to find her.  It is this aspect that Amaral has rejected in his "thesis" and why he is being sued.  In my opinion, it is utterly immoral to try to persuade people that the child is dead and therefore not worth looking for when there is even a slim possibility that she could still be alive.

Until/unless there is incontrovertible proof that Madeleine is dead, the ONLY moral position to take is that she could be alive and living somewhere, therefore the search for her MUST continue.

That really is such a fair and compassionate point,  I don't see how anyone could argue with it

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course neither Amaral nor the McCanns (or any person commentating on this case) KNOW whether Madeleine is dead or alive.  However, in the absence of a body or any conclusive evidence pointing to death, then surely the only moral stance is to consider the possibility of her being alive.

This is the basis on which her parents have conducted their campaign, and the primary reason for those of us who support their efforts to find her.  It is this aspect that Amaral has rejected in his "thesis" and why he is being sued.  In my opinion, it is utterly immoral to try to persuade people that the child is dead and therefore not worth looking for when there is even a slim possibility that she could still be alive.

Until/unless there is incontrovertible proof that Madeleine is dead, the ONLY moral position to take is that she could be alive and living somewhere, therefore the search for her MUST continue.

It is a very moral post, Chinagirl, and I am inclined to go along with you.

But just to be devil's advocate, if, for the sake of argument the parents were in any way guilty of something sinister (I find that hard to believe myself, but it is a possibility) then we have the question of the safety and welfare of two other children, alive and well and entitled to the best care possible, to consider. It is not without reason that parents are investigated in these circumstances, and this is one of them.

That's not to say that Amaral has a right to try to persuade people not to bother looking for Madeleine, without being able to back up his thesis. And I don't think he had much of a care for the twins or anyone else in mind when he wrote the book...

[Chinagirl]

No sensible person would suggest that the parents shouldn't have been investigated. Even Gerry McCann himself said he understood that this should take place.  Amaral, however, decided the day after the disappearance that the parents had to be implicated in covering up the death of the child, thus faking an abduction.  He then distorted the flimsy evidence to fit this scenario to the exclusion of all else, ending up writing a book, making an appallingly bad documentary, and giving numerous interviews around Europe, emphasising the impossibility of the child being alive and therefore the futility of searching for her.

His activities have had the effect of turning people, especially in Portugal, against the McCann parents, their extended family and the friends holidaying with them, and it is self-evident that such animosity towards the McCanns has caused people (again, particularly in Portugal) to believe that the child is dead and not worth looking for.  One has to wonder if some tiny morsel of evidence pointing to Madeleine's whereabouts, some vague suspicion about unusual local activity, or knowledge about someone's nefarious behaviour has not been passed on to the authorities because of the belief, engendered by an ex-senior police officer, that the child is dead, therefore pointless coming forward with such evidence or suspicion.

Amaral's behaviour in this matter has been immoral and inhumane.  As Sherlock Holmes said in the post above, "That's not to say that Amaral has a right to try to persuade people not to bother looking for Madeleine, without being able to back up his thesis. And I don't think he had much of a care for the twins or anyone else in mind when he wrote the book..."

[Chinagirl]

That really is such a fair and compassionate point,  I don't see how anyone could argue with it

Thank you.  But they will, you can depend on it ........

[stephen25000]

No sensible person would suggest that the parents shouldn't have been investigated. Even Gerry McCann himself said he understood that this should take place.  Amaral, however, decided the day after the disappearance that the parents had to be implicated in covering up the death of the child, thus faking an abduction.  He then distorted the flimsy evidence to fit this scenario to the exclusion of all else, ending up writing a book, making an appallingly bad documentary, and giving numerous interviews around Europe, emphasising the impossibility of the child being alive and therefore the futility of searching for her.

His activities have had the effect of turning people, especially in Portugal, against the McCann parents, their extended family and the friends holidaying with them, and it is self-evident that such animosity towards the McCanns has caused people (again, particularly in Portugal) to believe that the child is dead and not worth looking for.  One has to wonder if some tiny morsel of evidence pointing to Madeleine's whereabouts, some vague suspicion about unusual local activity, or knowledge about someone's nefarious behaviour has not been passed on to the authorities because of the belief, engendered by an ex-senior police officer, that the child is dead, therefore pointless coming forward with such evidence or suspicion.

Amaral's behaviour in this matter has been immoral and inhumane.  As Sherlock Holmes said in the post above, "That's not to say that Amaral has a right to try to persuade people not to bother looking for Madeleine, without being able to back up his thesis. And I don't think he had much of a care for the twins or anyone else in mind when he wrote the book..."

'Amaral's behaviour in this matter has been immoral and inhumane. '

Utter biased rubbish.

You are an out and out Mccann supporter.

The two words 'immoral and inhumane' can be applied equally to the parents in their treatment of their children in leaving them alone and unprotected.

[Chinagirl]

As they can be applied to you, and all like you, who would condemn a child for your perceived mistake of her parents.

[stephen25000]

As they can be applied to you, and all like you, who would condemn a child for your perceived mistake of her parents.

What a pathetic comment.

Perceived mistake ???  8-)(--)

They did the same thing night after night.

I find it quite extraordinary that some people still support the Mccanns regardless of what they've done.