Why is Goncalo Amaral stalling?

[stephen25000]

I think the judge will fully understand the frustrations of the mccanns having to deal with the disgraced amaral....I'm just so looking forward to the judges decision...its clear what it will be

So you would like it to be.

Doesn't make true.

[stephen25000]

The question is..why is amaral stalling...which few appear to want to address... I think he has lost and is trying to delay the inevitable humiliation

Let's wait for the judgment and the following inevitable appeals.

[Carana]

The question is..why is amaral stalling...which few appear to want to address... I think he has lost and is trying to delay the inevitable humiliation

I suppose he must have some reason to fire his lawyer at the 12th hour, when all it seems that he had left to do was to summarise his client's case.

Was this a sudden dissatisfication with his services?

How would a new lawyer be able to do so without having been involved until now? Or is this part of some last minute bright idea?

[Brietta]

And as Mr Amaral exercised his legal right to dismiss his legal representative at any time in the trial by the same token she should also respect that decision.

I have never disputed Dr Amaral's right to dismiss his lawyer, he certainly has sacked plenty of them.

I just wonder at the manner and the timing in which he did so on this occasion. IMO he showed contempt for the court. 

[jassi]

I have never disputed Dr Amaral's right to dismiss his lawyer, he certainly has sacked plenty of them.

I just wonder at the manner and the timing in which he did so on this occasion. IMO he showed contempt for the court.

It would appear that the Court does not agree with you.

[faithlilly]

I have never disputed Dr Amaral's right to dismiss his lawyer, he certainly has sacked plenty of them.

I just wonder at the manner and the timing in which he did so on this occasion. IMO he showed contempt for the court.

AFAIAW Amaral has dismissed two lawyers so can we please get this in to perspective.

And as to him showing contempt for the court, just because you don't know the reason for his actions doesn't mean that he didn't  have one and one, it seems that the judge was satisfied with.

[Montclair]

Gonçalo Amaral was within his rights to dismiss his lawyer and I think that people, before bashing him, wait until you know the reason.  I'm sure that the judge has held many other trials where lawyers have been sacked.

[Mr Gray]

Gonçalo Amaral was within his rights to dismiss his lawyer and I think that people, before bashing him, wait until you know the reason.  I'm sure that the judge has held many other trials where lawyers have been sacked.

we all know the reason..hes running scared...ii see you take exception to posters bashing amaral but are quite happy to bash the mccanns yourself...typical hypocrisy

[Montclair]

we all know the reason..hes running scared...ii see you take exception to posters bashing amaral but are quite happy to bash the mccanns yourself...typical hypocrisy

Think what you want!

[Brietta]

Gonçalo Amaral was within his rights to dismiss his lawyer and I think that people, before bashing him, wait until you know the reason.  I'm sure that the judge has held many other trials where lawyers have been sacked.

You seem to recognise that Dr Amaral exercised his right to dismiss his lawyer and I doubt if we will ever know the reason.  I imagine his lawyer will be bound by client confidentiality; but he is on record as saying he doesn't know anyway. 
Although he must be annoyed as such a last minute public sacking is an implicit accusation of his professional incompetence.  In the circumstances I think this makes it even more extraordinary that he delayed his departure to argue his ex-client's case before the judge.

You are capable of recognising the legal right of Dr Amaral to dismiss his lawyer at the concluding day of a long running trial, and you are prepared to argue that position.

Conversely you are incapable of recognising the legal right of Dr Kate McCann to refuse to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer and you are prepared to argue that position.

Can't you see the irony of that?

[stephen25000]

You seem to recognise that Dr Amaral exercised his right to dismiss his lawyer and I doubt if we will ever know the reason.  I imagine his lawyer will be bound by client confidentiality; but he is on record as saying he doesn't know anyway. 
Although he must be annoyed as such a last minute public sacking is an implicit accusation of his professional incompetence.  In the circumstances I think this makes it even more extraordinary that he delayed his departure to argue his ex-client's case before the judge.

You are capable of recognising the legal right of Dr Amaral to dismiss his lawyer at the concluding day of a long running trial, and you are prepared to argue that position.

Conversely you are incapable of recognising the legal right of Dr Kate McCann to refuse to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer and you are prepared to argue that position.

Can't you see the irony of that?

'Conversely you are incapable of recognising the legal right of Dr Kate McCann to refuse to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer and you are prepared to argue that position.'

Yes, to avoid contradictions with her husbands testimony.

[Brietta]

'Conversely you are incapable of recognising the legal right of Dr Kate McCann to refuse to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer and you are prepared to argue that position.'

Yes, to avoid contradictions with her husbands testimony.

Predictable - but actually no argument at all to justify one position and not the other.

Either one has legal rights which can be exercised with impunity.  In other words what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

However when it comes to Dr Kate McCann - she can do no right, in the opinion of some.
When it comes to Dr Amaral - he can do no wrong, in the opinion of the same people.

A stance which is incompatible with the rule of law and the rights of the individual.

[slartibartfast]

Predictable - but actually no argument at all to justify one position and not the other.

Either one has legal rights which can be exercised with impunity.  In other words what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

However when it comes to Dr Kate McCann - she can do no right, in the opinion of some.
When it comes to Dr Amaral - he can do no wrong, in the opinion of the same people.

A stance which is incompatible with the rule of law and the rights of the individual.

They are 2 very different situations. I can understand many reasons why GA would sack his lawyer that would help him win his case, I can't see a single reason why KM not answering the questions would help find Maddie.

[Mr Gray]

They are 2 very different situations. I can understand many reasons why GA would sack his lawyer that would help him win his case, I can't see a single reason why KM not answering the questions would help find Maddie.

Could you share a couple of the reasons where sacking his lawyer will help amaral win his case

[slartibartfast]

Could you share a couple of the reasons where sacking his lawyer will help amaral win his case

His lawyer wanted to go down a route he didn't think would help.
His lawyer wanted to cut a good deal with the McCann team.
Another Lawyer suggested a better approach.

Now tell me how KM's silence helped the search.