Amaral's Hypothesis - credible or not?

[Jean-Pierre]

Amarals Thesis - credible or not, is the title of this thread.

I contend it is not.  After all, even the author is so confident in the veracity of his own thesis that he bottled his "day in court" this morning. 

Q.E.D.

  

[jassi]

Was he due to speak today?

[stephen25000]

Amarals Thesis - credible or not, is the title of this thread.

I contend it is not.  After all, even the author is so confident in the veracity of his own thesis that he bottled his "day in court" this morning. 

Q.E.D.

 

He played the mccanns at their own game.

Q.E.D.

[Jean-Pierre]

He played the mccanns at their own game.

Q.E.D.

Hardly.  Your hero bottled it, plain and simple.  He can talk big about his honour and justice, but when it comes to the point.......   

[stephen25000]

Hardly.  Your hero bottled it, plain and simple.  He can talk big about his honour and justice, but when it comes to the point....... 

No he played them.

P.S. He's not my hero.

What made you assume that ?

The mccanns wanted REVENGE on him.

He gave them a taste of their own medicine.

[Jean-Pierre]

No he played them.

P.S. He's not my hero.

What made you assume that ?

The mccanns wanted REVENGE on him.

He gave them a taste of their own medicine.

Yes, what a terribly clever fellow.

There is a problem of course.  He is fast running out of options.  The judge has given him just 10 days to appoint another lawyer of his own choosing.  Otherwise the court will appoint one for him. 

If he fails to appear again, he risks a "judgement in default of defense" which is binding. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Amarals Thesis - credible or not, is the title of this thread.

I contend it is not.  After all, even the author is so confident in the veracity of his own thesis that he bottled his "day in court" this morning. 

Q.E.D.

 

Remember the days, not that long ago, when we were assured the McCanns had settled on Amaral's terms?  OMG what a joke.  Before that we were assured Amaral was itching to get the McCanns into the witness stand where he would then flourish the much vaunted ace he had up his sleeve and trounce them with his brilliance.  Another hilarious joke.  The man is a coward and a joke and any credibility he may have started off with at the beginning of this farce (and it wasn't much then) now lies in tatters at his feet.

[faithlilly]

Remember the days, not that long ago, when we were assured the McCanns had settled on Amaral's terms?  OMG what a joke.  Before that we were assured Amaral was itching to get the McCanns into the witness stand where he would then flourish the much vaunted ace he had up his sleeve and trounce them with his brilliance.  Another hilarious joke.  The man is a coward and a joke and any credibility he may have started off with at the beginning of this farce (and it wasn't much then) now lies in tatters at his feet.

Soon after it was rumoured that the McCanns were seeking a settlement with Amaral with regard to their libel claim their Facebook webmaster was asked whether those rumours were true. The webmaster informed the questioner that she would ask Kate and get back to them, which she did within a few days, reporting that the rumours where simply that, rumours.

When this information was passed to a well respected blogger, who subsequently published it on his blog, legal action was threatened unless Kate's answer, via her webmaster, was withdrawn from his blog.

Now my question is this. If the McCanns hadn't asked to settle, and where indeed telling the truth that it was only a rumour, why the need to threaten legal action to have Kate's answer withdrawn from the public domain ?

[Carana]

Yes, what a terribly clever fellow.

There is a problem of course.  He is fast running out of options.  The judge has given him just 10 days to appoint another lawyer of his own choosing.  Otherwise the court will appoint one for him. 

If he fails to appear again, he risks a "judgement in default of defense" which is binding.

I asked you on a different thread, but there have been musical threads again, so you may have missed it.

It seems as if he's stalling... but to what end?

[Jean-Pierre]

Soon after it was rumoured that the McCanns were seeking a settlement with Amaral with regard to their libel claim their Facebook webmaster was asked whether those rumours were true. The webmaster informed the questioner that she would ask Kate and get back to them, which she did within a few days, reporting that the rumours where simply that, rumours.

When this information was passed to a well respected blogger, who subsequently published it on his blog, legal action was threatened unless Kate's answer, via her webmaster, was withdrawn from his blog.

Now my question is this. If the McCanns hadn't asked to settle, and where indeed telling the truth that it was only a rumour, why the need to threaten legal action to have Kate's answer withdrawn from the public domain ?

If you still seriously believe that the attempt to settle was an attempt to sue for peace by the McCanns after todays events then I fear you must have a more tenuous grasp on reality than even I had thought.

It is duty of all litigants to attempt find a settlement out of court.

The only ones who can actually stay an action are the plaintiffs, or the judge may order the parties to some form of mediation.  The defendant never has that right, for obvious reasons.

so the McCanns would have had to stay the action,  but it was clearly initiated by "Dr" Amaral, trying an offer which was unacceptable. 

Never mind.  I am sure he will be grateful for any donations, and may even raise a glass to he gullible donees.     

[jassi]

If you still seriously believe that the attempt to settle was an attempt to sue for peace by the McCanns after todays events then I fear you must have a more tenuous grasp on reality than even I had thought.

It is duty of all litigants to attempt find a settlement out of court.

The only ones who can actually stay an action are the plaintiffs, or the judge may order the parties to some form of mediation.  The defendant never has that right, for obvious reasons.

so the McCanns would have had to stay the action,  but it was clearly initiated by "Dr" Amaral, trying an offer which was unacceptable. 

Never mind.  I am sure he will be grateful for any donations, and may even raise a glass to he gullible donees.  

He could perhaps recoup his finances with a   a new book - 'The McCanns,  holidaymakers from Hell'   

[Eleanor]

He could perhaps recoup his finances with a   a new book - 'The McCanns,  holidaymakers from Hell'   

No, they come from Rothely.

[faithlilly]

If you still seriously believe that the attempt to settle was an attempt to sue for peace by the McCanns after todays events then I fear you must have a more tenuous grasp on reality than even I had thought.

It is duty of all litigants to attempt find a settlement out of court.

The only ones who can actually stay an action are the plaintiffs, or the judge may order the parties to some form of mediation.  The defendant never has that right, for obvious reasons.

so the McCanns would have had to stay the action,  but it was clearly initiated by "Dr" Amaral, trying an offer which was unacceptable. 

Never mind.  I am sure he will be grateful for any donations, and may even raise a glass to he gullible donees.   

It is not at all clear that it was 'initiated by Dr Amaral' but if it was why the need to threaten several individuals with legal action over a statement that was, basically, the truth ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Soon after it was rumoured that the McCanns were seeking a settlement with Amaral with regard to their libel claim their Facebook webmaster was asked whether those rumours were true. The webmaster informed the questioner that she would ask Kate and get back to them, which she did within a few days, reporting that the rumours where simply that, rumours.

When this information was passed to a well respected blogger, who subsequently published it on his blog, legal action was threatened unless Kate's answer, via her webmaster, was withdrawn from his blog.

Now my question is this. If the McCanns hadn't asked to settle, and where indeed telling the truth that it was only a rumour, why the need to threaten legal action to have Kate's answer withdrawn from the public domain ?

I'd have to see the full trail of correspondence from both sides before I could comment on that.  It sounds to me like another typical doubter deliberate misunderstanding.    The fact remains - the McCanns did not settle on Amaral's terms, contrary to what we were told by many (including if memory serves by the "well respected" (sic) blogger).

[faithlilly]

I'd have to see the full trail of correspondence from both sides before I could comment on that.  It sounds to me like another typical doubter deliberate misunderstanding.    The fact remains - the McCanns did not settle on Amaral's terms, contrary to what we were told by many (including if memory serves by the "well respected" (sic) blogger).

I have seen the correspondence and there is no misunderstanding.

Even you must admit it is strange that the McCann's representative wanted to suppress the information, if everything was as you are leading us to believe.

As to the McCanns not settling, I suspect that may have been  Dr Amaral's decision and not theirs.