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.
Interesting that you make no criticism of Amaral who goes on chat shows on a regular basis elaborating his unevidenced claims against the McCanns, describing his motives for defending his "honour" and generally discussing the case.
I am suggesting that perhaps his lawyer didn't concur and advised him in no uncertain terms that his behaviour was actually damaging his chances in the case? And Amaral did not like this affront to his right to say what he likes when he likes so sacked him.
It has also been suggested by some that his motive in sacking the man was simply a bit of legal trickery and the comment was made that its rather odd that a sacked lawyer colludes with the defendant by going to court to explain that he has been sacked and the defendant cannot therefore continue. We will soon see what pans out.
But it is obviously important that you indicate to us that the McCanns expressing simply their natural indignation at this disgraced ex-cop's fourth or fifth cynical interruption of the case is somehow wrong in your opinion.
No sense of bias at all in that post above from you, oh deary me no!
