Can someone explain something, to me, unfathomable?

[ferryman]

When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?

[C.Edwards]

When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?

Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.

[ferryman]

Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.

Car crash?

In store right enough, I would say, for later on in the trial.

But it won't be the McCanns crashing ...

[Lyall]

When Dr Amaral wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death, covered up the fact of her death and her body and launched a fraudulent fund in their daughter's name: when Dr Amaral wants the right to say all that, how does not the frank admission of his own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive, indeed, request that proceedings be in camera to protect her lest she be alive, not cause the instant collapse of Amaral's defence?

The book isn't intended to try to prove his theory, because the shelving of the case demonstrated it cannot be proven (though neither can any other theory). It's a theory. The lawyer may have his own and still represent Mr Amaral. No problem.

[ferryman]

The book isn't intended to try to prove his theory, because the shelving of the case demonstrated it cannot be proven (though neither can any other theory). It's a theory. The lawyer may have his own and still represent Mr Amaral. No problem.

Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)

[Luz]

Was probably being sympathetic towards the car crash court room drama he knew was about to unfold.

 

[icabodcrane]

I'll have a stab at it

Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case

The Public Prosecutor,  prior to archiving,   concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed  ...   one of which was 'abduction'  (  as claimed by the McCanns )   ...  and another of which was Neglectful Homicide  (  as claimed by Amaral  ) 

Amaral  (  and his lawyer  )  must  acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the  'possibility'  that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive

However,  whilst acknowledging that possibility,  Amaral's  own   conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents   ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )   

Amaral's lawyer,  whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor,   is defending his client's right,  under the Portuguese constitution,   to express his  own  conclusion and opinion  based on the knowledge available to him

Could that be it  ? 

[Lyall]

Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)

We know but it seems the evidence claimed in the book isn't being challenged in the courtroom? Instead it appears they are concentrating on emotion.

Why do you think they do not appear to be challenging the evidence?

[Lyall]

I'll have a stab at it

Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case

The Public Prosecutor,  prior to archiving,   concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed  ...   one of which was 'abduction'  (  as claimed by the McCanns )   ...  and another of which was Neglectful Homicide  (  as claimed by Amaral  ) 

Amaral  (  and his lawyer  )  must  acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the  'possibility'  that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive

However,  whilst acknowledging that possibility,  Amaral's  own   conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents   ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )   

Amaral's lawyer,  whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor,   is defending his client's right,  under the Portuguese constitution,   to express his  own  conclusion and opinion  based on the knowledge available to him

Could that be it  ?

Sounds logical to me

[Luz]

Even in Portugal (where the bar of libel is higher than in England) it is not so high that anyone can say what the hell they like and get away with it (as Robert Murat proved by successfully suing Correia de Manaha)

But ferryman, although I don't know the text that was submitted to the Court for this action, what I understood from Isabel Duarte's own words in the first day, is that this is a civil case for reparation of damages suffered, within the Civil Law of Civil Responsibility (the same law you use if a building crashes over your car or your head).  If you recall, the previous trial invoked personality rights, the ones that are invoked in defamation crime cases, the only ones that could account for the arrest of the books.
Now we are on a different level. What is being argued (and the trial reports reflect that) is that the publication of the book and TV documentary caused damages that the claimants want to be compensated financially for.

The problem is that so far they have not presented any documented proof that harm was suffered. No medical testimonies, no psychiatric evaluations, no statistics experts,....nada, but a load of smoke.

[ferryman]

I'll have a stab at it

Madeleine's disappearance was archived as an unsolved case

The Public Prosecutor,  prior to archiving,   concluded that a number of possible explanations for the child's disappearance existed  ...   one of which was 'abduction'  (  as claimed by the McCanns )   ...  and another of which was Neglectful Homicide  (  as claimed by Amaral  )

Amaral  (  and his lawyer  )  must  acknowledge and respect the conclusions drawn by the Prosecutor and allow for the  'possibility'  that Madeleine was abducted and may still be alive

However,  whilst acknowledging that possibility,  Amaral's  own   conclusion is that the missing child died in the apartment and an abduction was subsequently staged by her parents   ( as the Public Prosecutor also allowed as a possibility )   

Amaral's lawyer,  whilst acknowledging all possibilities quoted by the Prosecutor,   is defending his client's right,  under the Portuguese constitution,   to express his  own  conclusion and opinion  based on the knowledge available to him

Could that be it  ?

Nope:

"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

[C.Edwards]

Car crash?

In store right enough, I would say, for later on in the trial.

But it won't be the McCanns crashing ...

"The McCanns are in full control. We shall crush Amaral"

[ferryman]

"The McCanns are in full control. We shall crush Amaral"

Amaral on the eve of his defeat at the libel trial?

[ferryman]

But ferryman, although I don't know the text that was submitted to the Court for this action, what I understood from Isabel Duarte's own words in the first day, is that this is a civil case for reparation of damages suffered, within the Civil Law of Civil Responsibility (the same law you use if a building crashes over your car or your head).  If you recall, the previous trial invoked personality rights, the ones that are invoked in defamation crime cases, the only ones that could account for the arrest of the books.
Now we are on a different level. What is being argued (and the trial reports reflect that) is that the publication of the book and TV documentary caused damages that the claimants want to be compensated financially for.

The problem is that so far they have not presented any documented proof that harm was suffered. No medical testimonies, no psychiatric evaluations, no statistics experts,....nada, but a load of smoke.

What did Murat present in his (successful) action against Correia de Mahaha?

[Lyall]

Nope:

"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

That's a document. Not law.

Why do you think it appears the evidence in the book isn't being challenged?