Why is Goncalo Amaral stalling?

[gilet]

Well someone snuck a good un, Holding hands, they were, and laughing fit to bust.  Something very amusing must have happened.

Surely they were not laughing hysterically all over the place when Amaral is so destitute and suffering so badly from the effects of the McCanns bringing this case? Surely not?

What will the body analysts and the amateur psychobabblers make of that?

[Jean-Pierre]

The very fact that you cannot see that it is perfectly normal to defend your child and your family reputation against the vile unevidenced claims of a disgraced, criminal ex-cop is shameful in my opinion.

It matters not how many times you deny the fact but a libel action in this case was the natural reaction not a vindictive greedy action.

And it matters not how many times you try to pretend otherwise, the action of Amaral in originally throwing in the towel as a cop at precisely the moment he thought his book would make most money is greedy grabbing of blood money especially when he was the cop who failed abysmally to conduct a proper investigation in the first place.

It is clear that we don't agree on this issue but I know that supporting the criminal disgraced ex cop as you do is not the kind of thing I could ever do when he is making such fantastic claims as those he is making about a missing little girl and her parents without being able to provide evidence for those claims.

I prefer the rule of law and understand that such vile claims as were made by Amaral deservedly should be challenged in a court, which is precisely what the McCanns are doing.

Had they been guilty do you really think they would have brought this trial to court? Not a chance!

Slightly off topic - there is a pervasive school of thought in some quarters that if an allegation is made, and the subject of such allegation does not correct it or sue the author then they must accept it is true.  afaik Bennett was of this opinion.

So those promulgating this school of thought should not be that surprised when they find themselves on the wrong end of a hefty claim for damages. 

[VIXTE]

The newspaper stories from today will be nothing compared to the stories which will appear about Amaral and his cohorts if this goes ahead.

Well, they made their bed themselves..used the media for their sick claims.. It will be interesting to have the attention turned on them 

[faithlilly]

It is an abusive claim about a fellow poster. No matter. I really don't care.

You have declared your support for the criminal, disgraced, ex-cop, Amaral in his efforts to besmirch the McCann family and his declaration without proof that the missing little girl, Madeleine is dead.

After that support its not altogether surprising that you prefer to abuse opposing posters here.

It's not really the fact that Amaral is saying that Madeleine may be dead that irks you is it gilet, SY have said something similar. It's the fact that he says that the McCanns are responsible that really rankles, isn't it ?

This isn't about finding a child for you or her parents, this is about saving reputations.

You know that and so do I.

[carlymichelle]

It's not really the fact that Amaral is saying that Madeleine may be dead that irks you is it gilet, SY have said something similar. It's the fact that he says that the McCanns are responsible that really rankles, isn't it ?

This isn't about finding a child for you or her parents, this is about saving reputations.

You know that and so do I.

its like when   the mcanns and supporters fantasise that maddie is alive and unharmed after   all these years     we would all love that but it isnt realistic at all

[Eleanor]

Surely they were not laughing hysterically all over the place when Amaral is so destitute and suffering so badly from the effects of the McCanns bringing this case? Surely not?

What will the body analysts and the amateur psychobabblers make of that?

It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it.  No Money.  No Marriage.  No Home to go to.  What on earth could be funny about that.  He wants to be careful, his money donating fans might get the wrong idea, like, is he laughing at them?  And what's The Lovely Sofa got to laugh at? 

[faithlilly]

I am hearing that the next move, once the case is won by the McCanns in Portugal, may well be a libel case brought in the UK where it will not be the responsibility of the McCanns to prove him wrong. He will be obliged to prove himself right.

And before anyone claims the book was never sold here. Not relevant. It has been made available here by Anna Silvestro in particular (and others) with his permission.

The newspaper stories from today will be nothing compared to the stories which will appear about Amaral and his cohorts if this goes ahead.

If the McCanns could have sued Amaral here they would have done.

I'd be interested if you could provide some examples where this has actually happened.

[gilet]

It's not really the fact that Amaral is saying that Madeleine may be dead that irks you is it gilet, SY have said something similar. It's the fact that he says that the McCanns are responsible that really rankles, isn't it ?

This isn't about finding a child for you or her parents, this is about saving reputations.

You know that and so do I.

NO you are completely wrong.

There is a massive difference between what Amaral has said and what SY have said.

SY have claimed that there is a possibility that Madeleine is dead. Well all sane people know that is a possibility. But they also know that it is not a fact and we all know that SY are equally claiming that Madeleine could be alive.

Amaral on the other hand does not post this as a possibility. He premises his "theory" (which is becoming ever more fantastic with coffins and cremations now) on Madeleine being dead. He has no evidence for this claim. But he makes the claim nonetheless. He then goes on to make vile allegations about the parents which are nothing but guesswork on his part as he cannot support his ideas with evidence.

Unlike SY, Amaral is promulgating ONLY the idea that Madeleine is dead.

That is the difference which apparently you are blind to.

This is entirely about ensuring that the little missing girl is not declared dead by a failed copper because he thinks it will earn him a fortune and help defend his reputation (a reputation completely shattered anyway by his criminal conviction of course).

[gilet]

Clearly Carlymichelle is unaware that there have been cases of missing children being found years after their disappearance.  You would have thought that in the last seven years or so she might have picked up this rather significant and heartwarming information. It is a shame that people make comments without having sought information on the subject prior to posting.

[Jean-Pierre]

NO you are completely wrong.

There is a massive difference between what Amaral has said and what SY have said.

SY have claimed that there is a possibility that Madeleine is dead. Well all sane people know that is a possibility. But they also know that it is not a fact and we all know that SY are equally claiming that Madeleine could be alive.

Amaral on the other hand does not post this as a possibility. He premises his "theory" (which is becoming ever more fantastic with coffins and cremations now) on Madeleine being dead. He has no evidence for this claim. But he makes the claim nonetheless. He then goes on to make vile allegations about the parents which are nothing but guesswork on his part as he cannot support his ideas with evidence.

Unlike SY, Amaral is promulgating ONLY the idea that Madeleine is dead.

That is the difference which apparently you are blind to.

This is entirely about ensuring that the little missing girl is not declared dead by a failed copper because he thinks it will earn him a fortune and help defend his reputation (a reputation completely shattered anyway by his criminal conviction of course).

I am still trying to find the connection with Dr Amarals honour and reputation, and his actions this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE

[VIXTE]

After learning about Amaral's coffin claims, it is clear to me that it is actually him who is feeding these sick theories about Madeline being dead this or that way to the internet forums. He is intentionally feeding the trolls probably using uneducated people who cannot sit down and read a book or a clearer information about his claims.

How many people in Portugal will tomorrow read Correiro Da Manha and will believe that Madeleine was hidden by her parents in a coffin in the church bellow the legs of a dead woman.

This man is sick. He needs treatment!

[gilet]

I am still trying to find the connection with Dr Amarals honour and reputation, and his actions this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE

What an excellent summary of the actions of Amaral yesterday!

Well done for finding that.

In the absence of any other options from his supporters as to why Amaral might have done a runner yesterday from court, that is as likely a possibility as any.

So far we have cowardice, madness, incompetence, stupid delaying tactics for no particular reason or deliberate vindictive inconveniencing of the lawyers, court, media and McCanns as options for his behaviour.

And no Amaral supporter has offered a single reason which could put him in a favourable light. Somebody suggested an "unknown reason" but that hardly counts. If no supporter can even think of any reason at all that bodes badly for the man and his sad book in my opinion.

Perhaps the morning will bring a rush of inspiration to the Amaral fan club?

[John]

Dispensing of ones lawyer/advocate at the last minute is nothing new but the question could be asked as to why now? 

It has been suggested that Amaral sacked Santos de Oliveira because he wanted to address the Court in the same way as the McCann's will do but Oliveira didn't concur.  If when Amaral appoints a new lawyer and he then makes application for Amaral to be heard then we will know the truth.

The second thing I would say is that it is not appropriate for pursuers to make statements to the gathered Press outside Court before a case is settled.  I would have thought that Isabel Duarte would have warned her clients of the perils of such conduct by now.

[colombosstogey]

The situation is simple.

Goncalo Amaral, we are told, is desperately short of money.

We are also told his money (a very substantial sum) is not available to him till this case is settled.

And his supporters are constantly re-iterating that he believes his case is strong.

Yet he is the one stalling and causing more expense for himself with the instruction of yet another lawyer.

Why?


I can only offer three possible suggestions as to why he has deliberately once again delayed the judgement in this case.

1) Perhaps he has not been paying attention to his lawyer's actions and only at literally the last moment has realised that his lawyer is incompetent and therefore has to be fired. In that case he is a fool who should have been paying attention as the delay is damaging him as much as anyone else (if he believes he will win that is).

2) Perhaps he actually knows he has lost the case and is simply dragging out the inevitable judgement against him. If so he is not only wasting court time, media time and the McCanns' time but also his own time. That would be totally stupid because the sooner an adverse judgement is made, the sooner he can start rebuilding his life.

3) Maybe he really does believe he will win the case but is enjoying the thrill of making the McCanns suffer more with every one of these cynical delays. If that is the case then he is a very sick and nasty individual.

I cannot work out which of the above might be the true reason.

Do other people have any opinions or possibly other suggestions as for the reason for this delay?


E

You need to get your facts straight.

This is the first time the court has been postponed because of Mr Amaral.

Its also incorrect they have come 3 times and it was always postponed thats rubbish.

Read the transcripts from day one.

1. Kate McCann came the first time to simply accompany one of her friends Hubbard and Loaches Daughter.
2. Gerry McCann then attended but he wasnt called.
3. Gerry McCann then came another time and was accompanying I believe his sister and MIL and again he wasnt called.

So its not 4 times its only 1.

It seems its the done thing to postpone these cases.

Also  if Mrs Healy for example came twice without being heard it's because of the Judge who cancelled an afternoon and then because of Duarte who forgot to notify Mrs Healy again. So can we not blame AMARAL for everything.

We dont know what happened everyone is summising AGAIN. He has every right to sack his team. Perhaps he had a fall out on Friday night courts dont open over the weekend so he could hardly put a letter in prior to that.

Everyone is just speculating.

He has had a breakdown.
Its spite.
Its strategy

so on and so forth.

Its all rollocks. He will have had his reasons he is not a stupid man.

IF the McCanns are so fired up about being put out then why did they take this case to court in the first place.

I bet you the majority of people going on about Amaral and his nasty book havent even read it.

Its actually very well written and although his THEORY is that the child died by accident and there was a cover up not once does he call the McCanns by nasty or vicious names. The book was not just about the child it was also about how it had affected his life, not only her, but other cases of children too.

There are far worse theorys out there about the McCanns are they being sued? NO.

I actually read Mrs McCanns book and found it highly disturbing.

They could have simply left it alone it would have just all fizzled out a long time ago. ITS them now that has brought all this suing to light as nearly all my friends didnt even know about Amarals book and are all off to try and buy it.

So stupidly they have opened themselves up to a can of worms.

I shall wait and see what happens.

WITHOUT all the speculation.

To be honest I could hardly blame Mr Amaral if he did have an anxiety attack his life has been ruined that day 3rd May 2007 just like the McCanns and anyone else touched by this story even innocent people gypsies and blond children dragged from beds, so much going on its been a flaming nightmare for many many many people including Murat.

[Mr Gray]

Dispensing of ones lawyer/advocate at the last minute is nothing new but the question could be asked as to why now? 

It has been suggested that Amaral sacked Santos de Oliveira because he wanted to address the Court in the same way as the McCann's will do but Oliveira didn't concur.  If when Amaral appoints a new lawyer and he then makes application for Amaral to be heard then we will know the truth.

The second thing I would say is that it is not appropriate for pursuers to make statements to the gathered Press outside Court before a case is settled.  I would have thought that Isabel Duarte would have warned her clients of the perils of such conduct by now.

perils of such conduct....perhaps amarals lawyers...all of them... have advised him of such and thats why he has sacked them...he is only delaying the inevitable total humilation