Why is Goncalo Amaral stalling?

[Mr Gray]

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.

again someone having a proper debate....

I think your first two reasons show the lawyer thought he couldn't win and I agree with that...of course it is remotely possible that amaral has found a new lawyer with a new approach but I seriously doubt it...

I never said kates silence would help the search because the pj were not looking...but I don't think it harmed the search in any way...I think the mccannns themselves have helped the search by getting sy involved

[stephen25000]

again someone having a proper debate....

I think your first two reasons show the lawyer thought he couldn't win and I agree with that...of course it is remotely possible that amaral has found a new lawyer with a new approach but I seriously doubt it...

I never said kates silence would help the search because the pj were not looking...but I don't think it harmed the search in any way...I think the mccannns themselves have helped the search by getting sy involved

The mccans didn't.

Rebekah Brooks did.

[John]

Amaral is The Defendant, you know.

And what would have been the point of The McCanns both appearing?  Although I think that one of them was present at most hearings.

As for The Questions and The Reconstruction.  No one in their right mind would have answered the questions put to Kate.  And neither of them refused to attend The Reconstruction.  Neither of them were guilty  of anything illegal.

PS. Can someone explain exactly what Protagonist means?

First off, the pursuer(s) are as much obliged to be in attendance as the defendant.

Secondly, neither of them were present at the vast majority of the hearings.

Thirdly, only someone with something to hide would have refused to answer all the PJ questions.  Gerry answered them so why didn't Kate?

Fourthly, along with the other protagonists they never attended the reconstruction.

Protagonist > a leading character

[Mr Gray]

First off, the pursuer(s) are as much obliged to be in attendance as the defendant.

Secondly, neither of them were present at the vast majority of the hearings.

Thirdly, only someone with something to hide would have refused to answer all the PJ questions.  Gerry answered them so why didn't Kate?

Fourthly, along with the other protagonists they never attended the reconstruction.

Protagonist > a leading character

they don't need to be present..and they are not obliged to be present....I saw one session where Gerry made the trip and the whole day was cancelled

as regards not answering questions..your remark is totally absurd ..colin stagg answered no questions ans was innocent

they were absolutely right not to attend the reconstruction

[Victoria]

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.

Well, let's make one thing clear - you don't sack a lawyer if things are going your way 

[Mr Gray]

Well, let's make one thing clear - you don't sack a lawyer if things are going your way 

of course you don't..and how many lawyers has amaral had up to now

[stephen25000]

of course you don't..and how many lawyers has amaral had up to now

We shall see on that one.

[Mr Gray]

We shall see on that one.

we will see what his next delaying tactic is...new lawyer needs more time to prepare...remember you heard it here first..how long could he delay for...who knows

[stephen25000]

we will see what his next delaying tactic is...new lawyer needs more time to prepare...remember you heard it here first..how long could he delay for...who knows

The mccanns have delayed too.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The McCanns were never called to attend at any time. They just showed up...So why the moaning about being inconvenienced?

similar situation would be: wedding crashers complaining they didn't get a chunk of cake- well they were not invited!

They asked to give an statement which may provide further evidence after  all other evidence has been heard, a change in the Law allows for this. The Judge allowed it- it is NOT the same as  a victim statement as it is here in the UK. I am lead to believe.

[VIXTE]

Could it be that Amaral is delaying the decision hoping that things would change in the UK re Presumption of Death Act, i.e that the new rules might presume Madeleine dead even if the parents don't  apply for it?

The Presumption of Death Act, due to be reformed in October following a campaign, is based on a seven-year rule.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/maddie-mccanns-parents-we-wont-3459122#ixzz35JR9vADq

[VIXTE]

Is this what Amaral is planning?

What if someone else makes an application another person does not agree with?
 
Where someone else has applied for a declaration of presumed death, or for a variation order,
you may intervene in the proceedings if you are the missing person's spouse, civil partner, parent,
child or sibling. If you are not the missing person's spouse, civil partner, parent, child or sibling,
you must ask the court for permission to intervene.
 
When will the Act come into force?
 
Although the Presumption of Death Act 2013 has been enacted, it has not yet been brought into
force. The Government said in March 2013 that the Ministry of Justice and the General Register
Office were starting work on creating the necessary rules and regulations to bring the scheme
into force. It cannot be brought into force until these rules and regulations are ready. Missing
People does not know, therefore, when it will come into force but is hopeful this will be soon.

Missing_People_Policy_Briefing_Presumption_of_Death_Act_2013.pdf

[valeria]

Is this what Amaral is planning?
Missing_People_Policy_Briefing_Presumption_of_Death_Act_2013.pdf

IMO this is not irrelevant to the stalling.
In fact is the most plausible explanation

[misty]

Amaral may also want to use the arrest of baby Daniel's mother for simulating an abduction as another example of parental involvement in a disappearance.
From tomorrow's edition of CdM
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcorreia%2Bda%2Bmanha%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D669

Amazing just how many of these terrible parenting incidents coincide with the libel trial hearings.

[VIXTE]

Amaral may also want to use the arrest of baby Daniel's mother for simulating an abduction as another example of parental involvement in a disappearance.
From tomorrow's edition of CdM
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcorreia%2Bda%2Bmanha%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D669

Amazing just how many of these terrible parenting incidents coincide with the libel trial hearings.

That woman was chewing chewing gum while reporting about her son's disappearance.