Was Gonçalo Amaral fair game given the content of his book?

[ferryman]

Ummm.... Links please? For this and your previous claim.

Angelo has kindly given you permission.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/libel-from-blog-promoted-by-mccanns-on.html

[jassi]

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/libel-from-blog-promoted-by-mccanns-on.html

What an interesting site. Thank you for bringing it to my attention 

[Eleanor]

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/libel-from-blog-promoted-by-mccanns-on.html

Thank you for that.

[Cariad]

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/libel-from-blog-promoted-by-mccanns-on.html

Thank you for the link. I've never seen that site before. I 'll have a good browse there!

What I was looking for though was some evidence that Dr Amaral had threatened to 'disappear' a child, which is what Sadie and Eleanor were discussing earlier and I can't find anything about that in your link?

Have I missed it or does it not exist?

[slartibartfast]

[... content removed as contrary to forum rules on posting unsupported potentially libelous material. ...]

Maybe it's because you can't back up your claims?

[Eleanor]

According to the reports there was no fraud conviction.  It was a civil case brought by his brother.  The outcome being that Dr Amaral and his ex wife had to refund equity in property to his brother.

The only conviction that we are aware of relating to Dr Amaral is that in the Cipriano case and was a suspended sentence of 18 months.

Goncalo Amaral and Sofia Leal also had to reimburse double the amount that they misappropriated as a means of restitution.  This sounds like a fine to me.

[pegasus]

Mr Amaral's film reconstructs (using an actress) the child waking up for no particular reason and walking out of the bedroom into the lounge carrying the cat.
Do you think that is correct?
If not, what are the first few seconds step by step of your better theory?

The point is, the forum is full of debates about important matters, but there is almost nothing at the very basic, first few seconds, step by step level, which at least Mr Amaral tried to do.

[John]

Goncalo Amaral and Sofia Leal also had to reimburse double the amount that they misappropriated as a means of restitution.  This sounds like a fine to me.

No, not a fine.  The money went to the brother and not to the State.  This sort of arrangement is quite normal in Spain and Portugal.  To give you some idea how this works, if someone intends to buy a house, pays a deposit but later pulls out he will lose the deposit.  If the seller pulls out he has to pay the prospective buyer a sum equal to twice the deposit.  I always found the Spanish system worked a treat...cuts out the gazumpers and the time wasters big time. 

[pegasus]

No, not a fine.  The money went to the brother and not to the State.  This sort of arrangement is quite normal in Spain and Portugal.  To give you some idea how this works, if someone intends to buy a house, pays a deposit but later pulls out he will lose the deposit.  If the seller pulls out he has to pay the prospective buyer a sum equal to twice the deposit.  I always found the Spanish system worked a treat...cuts out the gazumpers and the time wasters big time. 

Sounds like a sensible way of doing things.
Misappropriate a euro, and you must pay the euro back plus another euro.
The english system could learn from that IMO.

[Eleanor]

No, not a fine.  The money went to the brother and not to the State.  This sort of arrangement is quite normal in Spain and Portugal.  To give you some idea how this works, if someone intends to buy a house, pays a deposit but later pulls out he will lose the deposit.  If the seller pulls out he has to pay the prospective buyer a sum equal to twice the deposit.  I always found the Spanish system worked a treat...cuts out the gazumpers and the time wasters big time. 

Agreed, not a fine exactly.  But still a punishment.  And pulling out of a contract is hardly as serious as half inching your brother's money.

[Estuarine]

"The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved."

That is why there is a Libel Trial.

Do you have evidence to support your statements. If not they are merely unsubstantiated statements.

[Mr Gray]

Do you have evidence to support your statements. If not they are merely unsubstantiated statements.

Its called common sense...something in very short supply on this thread...the allegations hadn't been proved..thats what it says...and that's why there is a libel trial...to prove the allegations

[Estuarine]

Its called common sense...something in very short supply on this thread...the allegations hadn't been proved..thats what it says...and that's why there is a libel trial...to prove the allegations

So you cannot substantiate it either. Why am I not surprised.

[Cariad]

Its called common sense...something in very short supply on this thread...the allegations hadn't been proved..thats what it says...and that's why there is a libel trial...to prove the allegations

As I understand it, the injunction that was deemed not valid was the injunction banning Dr Amaral's book and the on going trail is a civil matter about compensation, not libel.

I'm sure someone will point out my mistake, should I have made one though.

[Carana]

Mr Amaral's film reconstructs (using an actress) the child waking up for no particular reason and walking out of the bedroom into the lounge carrying the cat.
Do you think that is correct?
If not, what are the first few seconds step by step of your better theory?

The point is, the forum is full of debates about important matters, but there is almost nothing at the very basic, first few seconds, step by step level, which at least Mr Amaral tried to do.

Interesting, Pegasus.

I doubt that we'll ever know.

It would seem that Amaral was trying to tie in the fact that Grime had given Cuddlecat to the police for forensic analysis as a result of Eddie's alert to it and his alert in the sofa area, plus the fact that Gerry and Jez were chatting roughly outside the wndow.

Up to there, I don't have an issue with exploring that hypothesis. However, there was no forensic evidence to back that up:

- The toy wasn't sent for forensic analysis (and I'm not at all sure what they would have been testing it for anyway back then);

- There was nothing noteworthy found behind the sofa (aside from a partial match to one of the cops and a partial match to someone's DNA identified in a very old crime scene - presumably UK) ETA: not necessarily, it could have been an Interpol database, but without enough markers to be significant);

- I'm not aware that the initial forensic team checked the window behind the sofa for finger/palmprints (that might have been a corroborating indication, but non-identifiable without a reference, and possibly an innocent incident prior to the disappearance, even if prints had turned out be those of a 3-year-old;

- Six hairs from her bed disappeared and were never analysed;

- A number of hairs (which may or may not have been relevant) were never identified as potentially belonging to any of the profiles of those known to have been in the apartment... but then not all of the previous occupants / people were tested to eliminate them, and, even if they had been, any of them could have brought friends / new acquaintances over for / coffee/ drinks / dinner.

So... he was defending his hypothesis, but he couldn't back it up. Not because he was taken off the case at a "crucial" moment, but because there WAS nothing to back it up.