Why is Goncalo Amaral stalling?

[xtina]

It is 100% relevant to the issue at hand.

Amaral in his cynical and contemptuous behaviour yesterday is simply continuing to demonstrate those aspects of his personality which brought him a criminal conviction and which got him thrown off the McCann case in disgrace for mouthing off to a journalist. It is a pattern of behaviour which has continued from day one of the case (coincidentally the day he was made arguidio in the case he would later be convicted in) to yesterday.

why should goncalo ...be at a unfair advantage which by all accounts is why he sacked his lawyer.....

why should he be abused all the time ...

lets face it .....the mccs left there babies on there own ....and want everyone else to pay ...for what they did wrong...

all it seems to me ...no ulterior motive no stalling ....just a fair hearing ....and he deserves that ....and if they don't like it tough ..

[Mr Gray]

It is stated in the archive report that the McCanns had the opportunity to clear their name but failed to take it.  Maybe the archive report is flawed too?

in that respect is certainly is..it is a totally ridiculous idea....If trhe mccanns ahd complied with the questioning...would that have completely cleared them...of course not ..it is a stupid idea from a stupid investigation and seems to stem from portugals fascist past

[Jean-Pierre]

You are obviously ignorant of the law.  Mr Amaral is legally within his right to dispense of his lawyer but the McCanns are not legally permitted to discuss the libel case in public and especially so outside the very court where the proceedings are taking place.  If anyone has a big mouth.....

Of course "Dr" Amaral is entitled to dispense with the services of his lawyer at any time.  It is a dangerous game as if the Judge suspects he is doing it as a device to delay the trial he may find himself as an LIP.  He was allowed an adjournment this time but I suspect he has lost his "home advantage" now - Senior judges usually have a background in advocacy and the wool is not easily pulled.

But under which law are the McCanns not legally permitted to discuss the libel case?  That is a new one on me. 

[Brietta]

why should goncalo ...be at a unfair advantage which by all accounts is why he sacked his lawyer.....

why should he be abused all the time ...

lets face it .....the mccs left there babies on there own ....and want everyone else to pay ...for what they did wrong...

all it seems to me ...no ulterior motive no stalling ....just a fair hearing ....and he deserves that ....and if they don't like it tough ..

Are you suggesting that Dr Amaral did not have a fair hearing in a Portuguese court?  It is hardly the fault of his defence or the court if the witnesses he called on his behalf appeared to give less than definitive testimony.

If there is no ulterior motive why didn't Dr Amaral allow his lawyer to make the concluding arguments which would have allowed the judge to make her decision.

Dr Amaral had his fair hearing, but I fear his assessment of proceedings was that he had lost his case.  His antics on Monday were designed to disallow the Drs McCann their fair hearing.
In this he was successful; but I think in the fullness of time it will be realised that he did his reputation a lot of damage while bringing the Justice system of Portugal into disrepute.

In my opinion he showed what a petty and vindictive man he is, so he may have won the battle but I think he has lost the war.

[Montclair]

I very much doubt it.  Amaral is the one who is treating The Court with contempt.  Four times.  No wonder The McCanns are exasperated.

Please give me the dates and circumstances of the other three delays in the trial which you can attribute to Gonçalo Amaral? You see I have a sneaking suspicion that Kate McCann is lying when she states this. And "everybody knows" will not be a good enough answer.

[Montclair]

amarals lawyers secretary having suspected bird flu...amarals lawyers grown up son having a routine minor operation...there are almost certainly more

The bird flu incident was for the book ban hearing and this matter was concluded in October 2010 when the book ban was overturned. A completely separate trial BTW.

So you are inferring that the operation for the lawyer's son was a lie. You do know that they have to present proof to the court to justify any absence or delays.

Another delay was when the judge had a personal matter to resolve and called off the hearing in the afternoon.
Was that at the behest of Gonçalo Amaral?

If you have any others you can confirm, please go ahead.

[Mr Gray]

The bird flu incident was for the book ban hearing and this matter was concluded in October 2010 when the book ban was overturned. A completely separate trial BTW.

So you are inferring that the operation for the lawyer's son was a lie. You do know that they have to present proof to the court to justify any absence or delays.

Another delay was when the judge had a personal matter to resolve and called off the hearing in the afternoon.
Was that at the behest of Gonçalo Amaral?

If you have any others you can confirm, please go ahead.

it was  a lie that the lawyer needed to be there

[Montclair]

it was  a lie that the lawyer needed to be there

That's a serious accusation. Are you also implying that the judge is dishonest when she accepted the lawyer's request?

[Mr Gray]

That's a serious accusation. Are you also implying that the judge is dishonest when she accepted the lawyer's request?

not as serious as amarals...it was a pathetic excuse..there is absolutely no reason why he had to go to hospital...how many 35 year old men have to have their father present when having minor day stay surgery

[Jean-Pierre]

I agree with Montclair - I believe the position to be that the lawyer has an overriding duty to the court to enable the court to proceed with business, notwithstanding the fact that he has been sacked.

This would involve making the Judge aware of the circumstances, and making application for an adjournment.

By leaving things to the absolute last minute like this Amaral has showed great disrespect to the court, the professional legal teams involved, and to his opponents.  In my view he is treading on dangerous ground - the Judge could have refused the adjournment but on this occasion allowed it.

For someone so keen to get the McCanns into court, his behavior is odd.  Even odder is his statement regarding coffins.  Unless substantiated this would appear to be further libel. 

All in all this suggests to me that he has given up and is just out to cause maximum damage at whatever cost.   

 

[jassi]

I agree with Montclair - I believe the position to be that the lawyer has an overriding duty to the court to enable the court to proceed with business, notwithstanding the fact that he has been sacked.

This would involve making the Judge aware of the circumstances, and making application for an adjournment.

By leaving things to the absolute last minute like this Amaral has showed great disrespect to the court, the professional legal teams involved, and to his opponents.  In my view he is treading on dangerous ground - the Judge could have refused the adjournment but on this occasion allowed it.

For someone so keen to get the McCanns into court, his behavior is odd.  Even odder is his statement regarding coffins.  Unless substantiated this would appear to be further libel. 

All in all this suggests to me that he has given up and is just out to cause maximum damage at whatever cost.

If theoretically, he has no money, what practical difference would that make? Can he be imprisoned for libel?

[Mr Gray]

If theoretically, he has no money, what practical difference would that make? Can he be imprisoned for libel?

perhaps he realises that he has now lost all the money the court holds...makes sense...he can say what he likes now..he is penniless

[Eleanor]

If theoretically, he has no money, what practical difference would that make? Can he be imprisoned for libel?

What, in Portugal?  Not in a civil case, I shouldn't think.  Unless he deliberately set out to Libel someone, knowing that he couldn't afford to pay.  But that would likely be a criminal case.

In England they have other options they can engage.

[jassi]

perhaps he realises that he has now lost all the money the court holds...makes sense...he can say what he likes now..he is penniless

That's what I was asking - are there any sanctions or can he say exactly what he wishes with impunity?

[Jean-Pierre]

That's what I was asking - are there any sanctions or can he say exactly what he wishes with impunity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwFXGPRDu4&feature=kp

If they win the current libel case and are awarded the proceeds of the book in damages, this would in effect leave him broke.  In theory they could bring further action against him.  But whats the point?

If he loses the libel action who will take any notice of what he says?  Even his most diehard supporters will drift away, leaving him muttering "i coulda beeen someone, I coulda been a contender" into his cup of meths.