In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.

[Angelo222]

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!!

[DCI]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?!

[Eleanor]

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 alive or dead.

Wonder how much Amaral is paying him?!

Obviously not enough.  Or perhaps he cares about his reputation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Obviously not enough.  Or perhaps he cares about his reputation.

I don't understand your point, Elanor. Who's reputation?

[Mr Gray]

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...

[stephen25000]

What about the dogs.....what about the dogs...

Perhaps you should refer to the whole quote from the lawyer.

Meanwhile what about the unproven abduction...what about the unproven abduction.. 

[Luz]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Redblossom]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.