Libel trial day 14 - Statement of facts proved/not proved issued to lawyers.

[pathfinder73]

I found that interesting as well. The reopening may not be based on new evidence, but on existing evidence in the files that may not have been adequately investigated at the time. And that depends on which files were being considered.

There doesn't seem to have been a comprehensive database at the time, let alone one which would integrate GNR and PJ reports / findings.

Mrs Fenn was burgled, yet whatever statement she'd made to the GNR isn't in the accessible files. Did the PJ check this further, or not? What about all the other burglaries? They would have been in GNR files... somewhere.

I'm not sure that there is one even now, although there may be progress in this direction.

The evidence has always been there if the PJ got it. Crecheman and Gaspar statements are two examples Amaral never saw. That sighting could have been ruled out in 2007. The mind boggles!

[John]

This must be a first, the Algarve Resident front page a day early!

[Anna]

You are probably correct there, Eleanor.

Amaral had no right to use any files in his book. The book would have been written well before the release date. All the photos he used were from the files.

Case archived 21/7/2008

Book launched 24/7/2008

Files released to public 4/8/2008

First payment he received of €22.500 16/7/2008.

What would the payment on the 16/07/08 have been for?

[Eleanor]

What would the payment on the 16/07/08 have been for?

An Advance, possibly.  But he certainly never wrote that book in three days.

[DCI]

What would the payment on the 16/07/08 have been for?

It was from Guerra e Paz, Editores, Anna. As Eleanor says possibly an advance.
     

An Advance, possibly.  But he certainly never wrote that book in three days.

[Anna]

An Advance, possibly.  But he certainly never wrote that book in three days.

Would the publishers, have given an advance, on a book that they hadn't read?

[Eleanor]

Would the publishers, have given an advance, on a book that they hadn't read?

No.

[Carew]

Read further back.

Sorry..........still not following your point. I`d better give up........

( Perhaps the 15 points on my "licence" here should be for poor comprehension rather than for inappropriate name -calling of moderators )

[DCI]

Would the publishers, have given an advance, on a book that they hadn't read?

Of course they wouldn't Anna. You would think they would have picked up on a few things written too.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Would the publishers, have given an advance, on a book that they hadn't read?

Yes! that is what advance payment is for. They can be given a general idea about the contents.
If you look at many celebrities and musicians who get advance payments of songs not yet written.

[slartibartfast]

Would the publishers, have given an advance, on a book that they hadn't read?

They don't usually give advances on books they can read, they just publish and sell them.

[Eleanor]

So Amaral wrote a book, The Truth of The Lie.  And the publishers gave him that sort of Advance without knowing anything about what was in it.

I sincerely hope they really get clobbered.  For stupidity if nothing else.

[Miss Taken Identity]

So Amaral wrote a book, The Truth of The Lie.  And the publishers gave him that sort of Advance without knowing anything about what was in it.

I sincerely hope they really get clobbered.  For stupidity if nothing else.

All the Harry Potter books were not written, The author got an advance on the second book before it had even been 'thought about' and the publishers did not get to 'read' as it was being written!

They would have been impressed about the content being explained, the reason for the book being written and national/local interest in the subject matter.

[Eleanor]

All the Harry Potter books were not written, The author got an advance on the second book before it had even been 'thought about' and the publishers did not get to 'read' as it was being written!

They would have been impressed about the content being explained, the reason for the book being written and national/local interest in the subject matter.

Whatever.  They are still In Court being Sued.

[Anna]

Something isn’t quite right here!

First payment he received of €22.500 16/7/2008.  (as posted) Receipt no 0614753


This would make it the 3rd receipt in receipts of payment and not the first, so how can it be the first payment?

The first receipt was issued on 10/08/08 receipt no 0614751 so how could it be before,
 the allegedly first payment on 16/07/08 receipt no 0614753

I think there is a mistake here and the date on receipt no 0614753 is incorrect
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3821-so-gonc-has-no-money

Please correct me, or explain why I may have got this wrong?