UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: icabodcrane on April 04, 2013, 08:56:56 PM
-
The last I heard the trial was called off at the eleventh hour and terms were being discussed for an out of court settlement
Anyone know what has happened since ?
-
Don't know
having seen recent pictures of Amaral
he looks ill - seriously ill
-
The last I heard the trial was called off at the eleventh hour and terms were being discussed for an out of court settlement
Anyone know what has happened since ?
Reports suggest that the McCanns asked Amaral for a settlement out of court and their request was rejected to the case goes ahead. When is another question.
-
Don't know
having seen recent pictures of Amaral
he looks ill - seriously ill
He's lost a great deal of weight hasn't he ?
Was it ever confirmed that it was the McCanns who sought an out of court settlement, as reported by Portuguese press and TV ?
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
Withdrawing would look very bad though, wouldn't it ?
Much more likely that they would rather present what looks like a compromised settlement to the public
They havn't said anything about Amaral approaching them for an out of court settlement, have they ? ... they almost certainly would have done if that had been the case, I think
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
Withdrawing would look very bad though, wouldn't it ?
Much more likely that they would rather present what looks like a compromised settlement to the public
They havn't said anything about Amaral approaching them for an out of court settlement, have they ? ... they almost certainly would have done if that had been the case, I think
But why would any defendant ever contemplate a request from the plaintiffs to settle out of court?
It would be a direct admission from the plaintiff that they did not believe their case held water.
Surely at that point a defendant who wanted to clear his name would want to go to court?
And in the case of Mr Amaral isn't there something lurking in the background, a further reason why he would not want to settle behind closed doors? Isn't he quoted as saying that he has got some kind of ace which he is going to reveal in court? Or is that just another myth in this case?
I think it is important to realise who the lawyer is for Mr Amaral in this case now and what direct links he has to certain Portuguese media outlets. What we read in the press, even the Portuguese press, is not always related to the truth of the matter.
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
Withdrawing would look very bad though, wouldn't it ?
Much more likely that they would rather present what looks like a compromised settlement to the public
They havn't said anything about Amaral approaching them for an out of court settlement, have they ? ... they almost certainly would have done if that had been the case, I think
and I think they almost certainly would not have discussed it at all, which they didn't. And nor has Amaral.
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
Withdrawing would look very bad though, wouldn't it ?
Much more likely that they would rather present what looks like a compromised settlement to the public
They havn't said anything about Amaral approaching them for an out of court settlement, have they ? ... they almost certainly would have done if that had been the case, I think
But why would any defendant ever contemplate a request from the plaintiffs to settle out of court?
It would be a direct admission from the plaintiff that they did not believe their case held water.
Surely at that point a defendant who wanted to clear his name would want to go to court?
And in the case of Mr Amaral isn't there something lurking in the background, a further reason why he would not want to settle behind closed doors? Isn't he quoted as saying that he has got some kind of ace which he is going to reveal in court? Or is that just another myth in this case?
I think it is important to realise who the lawyer is for Mr Amaral in this case now and what direct links he has to certain Portuguese media outlets. What we read in the press, even the Portuguese press, is not always related to the truth of the matter.
I know nothing about Amaral's lawyer, but I am aware that the McCanns have a PR spokesman ( Clarence Mitchell ) who might be expected to have informed the press if Amaral had come looking for a way to weasel out of court
Not a peep from Michell, or any other 'source' close to the family
That really does lead me to believe Portuguese press and TV might be correct when they say it was the McCanns who wanted to avoid a trial at the last minute
-
Then why is The Trial going ahead?
-
More likely Amaral asking for a settlement. Bearing in mind that only The Plaintiff can ask for a postponement. If The McCanns wished to end it they only had to withdraw.
Withdrawing would look very bad though, wouldn't it ?
Much more likely that they would rather present what looks like a compromised settlement to the public
They havn't said anything about Amaral approaching them for an out of court settlement, have they ? ... they almost certainly would have done if that had been the case, I think
For all things 'Amaral' please contact Joana Morais
and report back here kindly
Cheers
-
Then why is The Trial going ahead?
Well, according to Portuguese press and TV ( who were, I assume, briefed by Amaral or his lawyer ) it was he who was approached for an out of court settlement ... if the trial is going ahead I suppose that must mean he rejected the offer
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
Is that true on either count?
Could you please explain how you know that Clarence Mitchell is still a "paid" spokesman? Or are you just making a presumption that he is?
And secondly, is there some reason why this case is not subject to judicial secrecy when the earlier case was? I was not aware that judicial secrecy is not relevant to some cases in Portugal. Perhaps you could explain why this one is not subject to it?
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
Is that true on either count?
Could you please explain how you know that Clarence Mitchell is still a "paid" spokesman? Or are you just making a presumption that he is?
And secondly, is there some reason why this case is not subject to judicial secrecy when the earlier case was? I was not aware that judicial secrecy is not relevant to some cases in Portugal. Perhaps you could explain why this one is not subject to it?
You know, I have no concrete response to give to either of those questions
I did 'assume' that Mitchell was still being paid by the McCanns ... but only by virtue of the fact that he has still been speaking on their behalf until very recently ( and I didn't think he was doing it for free )
As to judicial secrecy, again, I was, indeed, making another assumption ... based on the public access to the Amaral/McCann court hearings in the past ( where judicial secrecy did not apply ... we had tweets from the court room )
I stand corrected though
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
Is that true on either count?
Could you please explain how you know that Clarence Mitchell is still a "paid" spokesman? Or are you just making a presumption that he is?
And secondly, is there some reason why this case is not subject to judicial secrecy when the earlier case was? I was not aware that judicial secrecy is not relevant to some cases in Portugal. Perhaps you could explain why this one is not subject to it?
You know, I have no concrete response to give to either of those questions
I did 'assume' that Mitchell was still being paid by the McCanns ... but only by virtue of the fact that he has still been speaking on their behalf until very recently ( and I didn't think he was doing it for free )
As to judicial secrecy, again, I was, indeed, making another assumption ... based on the public access to the Amaral/McCann court hearings in the past ( where judicial secrecy did not apply ... we had tweets from the court room )
I stand corrected though
Please don't see my post as a correction because I have no idea as to the answers to the questions.
I would be interested if anyone can answer either of them.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
Well of course they are not obliged to be open and honest with the public ... but it would be better if they were, don't you think ?
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
Well of course they are not obliged to be open and honest with the public ... but it would be better if they were, don't you think ?
No, I don't think so.
Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree. This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
Well of course they are not obliged to be open and honest with the public ... but it would be better if they were, don't you think ?
No, I don't think so.
Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree. This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.
Perhaps
I must say though, I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ... but you may be right, and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy, and polite niceties
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
Well of course they are not obliged to be open and honest with the public ... but it would be better if they were, don't you think ?
No, I don't think so.
Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree. This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.
Perhaps
I must say though, I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ... but you may be right, and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy, and polite niceties
Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly bad manners for any of the parties to discuss this. And anyway, no settlement was reached, so nothing to discuss.
So what did you expect? "Guess wot, Amaral has caved in, ha ha ha"? Sheesh, perish the thought.
-
Amaral,
and I don't wish the guy any more bad luck than he is having right now
disqualified himself from the case
by turning his backside 180 degrees in his bed
when told a 3 year old was missing
on his watch - on his patch
inexcusable - basta
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
Well, there are no judicial secrecy laws in place now ... the McCanns are at liberty to clear up any 'misunderstanding' by instructing their paid spokesman to tell the press and public what has happened
The McCanns are under no obligation to do so. It is no one's business but their own.
Well of course they are not obliged to be open and honest with the public ... but it would be better if they were, don't you think ?
No, I don't think so.
Out of Court Settlements are never discussed until they are complete, and even then the full details are rarely given, unless both parties agree. This isn't Secrecy, it is Court Etiquette.
Perhaps
I must say though, I never got the feeling the McCanns thought they owed Amaral anything ... but you may be right, and they feel he is entitled to consideration, privacy, and polite niceties
Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly bad manners for any of the parties to discuss this. And anyway, no settlement was reached, so nothing to discuss.
So what did you expect? "Guess wot, Amaral has caved in, ha ha ha"? Sheesh, perish the thought.
Something like that, yes
I would have expected the McCanns, through a spokesperson, to have proclaimed Amaral had come to them pleading for a way out of their libel action ... and that they had given him short shrift and said uniquivically that they would have their day in court and he would pay for the damage he has done to their search for Madeleine
This is the man, after all, of whom Kate McCann said in her book:
"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"
I really don't believe they would be concerned, therefore about offending his sensibilities with 'bad manners' ... I really don't
-
I would have expected the McCanns, through a spokesperson, to have proclaimed Amaral had come to them pleading for a way out of their libel action ... and that they had given him short shrift and said uniquivically that they would have their day in court and he would pay for the damage he has done to their search for Madeleine
This is the man, after all, of whom Kate McCann said in her book:
"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"
I really don't believe they would be concerned, therefore about offending his sensibilities with 'bad manners' ... I really don't
And how would that sort of a public pronouncement have helped the McCanns and Amaral to have reached a mutually satisfactory settlement?
Well I wouldn't expect the McCanns to be in the slightest bit concerned about what would 'satisfy' Goncalo Amaral
... if what they have claimed in their libel writ is true, then nothing less than than his abject defeat in a court of law would suffice
Wouldn't you say ?
-
So they wouldn't want to be settling to appease him then, wouldn't you say?
-
So they wouldn't want to be settling to appease him then, wouldn't you say?
Well of course not ! .... where did that question come from ?
*scratches head*
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
It's possible of course ( anything is possible at this point, given that the British press have reported not one iota )
Why would the McCanns be wanting to settle out of court at all though ? ... what benefit would that be to them if they were convinced Amaral had libeled them and they would win in court with justice being be served ?
-
Can't find latest thread that I replied to. ?????
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1119.msg31715#msg31715
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
It's possible of course ( anything is possible at this point, given that the British press have reported not one iota )
Why would the McCanns be wanting to settle out of court at all though ? ... what benefit would that be to them if they were convinced Amaral had libeled them and they would win in court with justice being be served ?
Personally I would not have thought the first move came from the McCanns. I think there is a stage 0 before those postulated by Chinagirl. I suspect that it is possible that Amaral offered a deal and the McCanns simply decided to consider it. I don't think Chinagirl's first stage is likely. I think it more likely that they were responding to an Amaral offer simply to see what it might be.
But this is pure speculation and I have no evidence for such a claim.
As there is nothing but reports emanating from Portuguese media connected to Amaral's lawyer and other friends I seriously doubt we will ever know what actually happened.
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
You certainly have talent to write "novels"....but I'm afraid you got it wrong.
Mr. Amaral never wanted an agreement out of court, in fact he has been waiting anxiously for the trial - that's why the answer was so quick.
And you can't just withdraw from a case, there are legal consequences and quite grave as it would be considered as abusing the legal system. Furthermore, although I didn't have a chance to confirm, but Amaral said on several occasions that he was contersuing and if so, even if Mr. and Mrs McCann wished to withdraw they would have to respond for Mr. Amaral's allegations.
By the way, in Portugal every judicial process (criminal or "civil") is under the "secrecy of law" but the Trial sessions are public (except when it involves children or very intimate/delicate matters) and that's why people were able to twit on the last trial.
-
Thank you for your comments particularly about judicial secrecy. I thought that would be the case regarding that.
Your comment about withdrawing from the case is also interesting. I can see that there could be certain repercussions if you made false claims.
Those two claims of yours are general knowledge which a Portuguese person (I assume you are such) might have.
But as for your claims regarding Mr Amaral's actions I will have to presume they are mere speculation unless you can offer some evidence to back them up. It could be said that you are simply a good story teller too and we simply have to take your word as we do with other story tellers? Or do you have some evidence you can offer us?
One thing that does not ring true about your story is that it seems to have been Mr Amaral delaying the trial in the past. Not a sign of someone desperate to get to court as you suggest.
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
You certainly have talent to write "novels"....but I'm afraid you got it wrong.
Mr. Amaral never wanted an agreement out of court, in fact he has been waiting anxiously for the trial - that's why the answer was so quick.
And you can't just withdraw from a case, there are legal consequences and quite grave as it would be considered as abusing the legal system. Furthermore, although I didn't have a chance to confirm, but Amaral said on several occasions that he was contersuing and if so, even if Mr. and Mrs McCann wished to withdraw they would have to respond for Mr. Amaral's allegations.
By the way, in Portugal every judicial process (criminal or "civil") is under the "secrecy of law" but the Trial sessions are public (except when it involves children or very intimate/delicate matters) and that's why people were able to twit on the last trial.
BIB ... I hadn't thought of that Luz, but it makes perfect sense
Folk can't just go round suing others and freezing their funds and assets for years ... and then pulling out at the eleventh hour, on the eve of a trial
That would have to be addressed in law, surely ?
-
Anything any of us write on this particular aspect of the case has to be speculation, as no statements have been issued by either side. I was merely offering a possibility - not writing a "novel!"
I do recall Amaral's threats to counter-sue. This doesn't appear to have happened. He wouldn't have to wait for the outcome of the McCann's action before proceeding with his own action.
Gilet has made a valid point about previous delays being caused by Amaral, which do not seem to be the actions of someone keen to present his defence.
-
Could the following scenario be a possibility:
1. The McCann's lawyer contacted Amaral's lawyer to say that they (McCanns/plaintiff) would be open to consider any reasonable settlement offer if defendant would be so minded to make one.
2. Amaral's lawyer responded to say that his client is considering his offer, but they need time, so would plaintiff's lawyer please apply for a postponement of court proceedings so negotiations could take place.
3. McCann's lawyer (whose prerogative it is) duly made such application which was granted.
4. Negotiations between the parties ensued, but ultimately came to nothing as plaintiff found defendant's offer unacceptable, and defendant was unwilling to alter it.
As has been pointed out earlier, if the McCanns had really not wished to proceed with the case, they could simply have withdrawn their action. In any legal proceedings it is invariably better to reach a settlement rather than proceed to trial, so I think it is immaterial which side made the first approach towards a settlement. In this particular case it was not reached.
It's possible of course ( anything is possible at this point, given that the British press have reported not one iota )
Why would the McCanns be wanting to settle out of court at all though ? ... what benefit would that be to them if they were convinced Amaral had libeled them and they would win in court with justice being be served ?
THe McCanns legal cases have each had the intention to stop furtherdefamation. For instance, their intention with Tony Bennett was to stop further libel rather than toimpoverish or imprison him; they appealled to the judge not to jail him.
-
Good point, Debunker.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.
-
It has been suggested that Goncalo Amaral was keen to see the result of Mr. Bennett's Trial before facing his own. Likewise Mr. Bennett.
In fact they have both been attempting to delay their own Trials alternately. This could be because they have hoped that the result of one might influence the other, presuming that a result was in their favour.
I do not know if this is true, or even if a ruling in one country could influence another.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.
If The McCanns settle in favour of Goncalo Amaral at their request, it will have the same negative effect.
-
But you suggested that The McCanns don't want a trial. So why don't they just withdraw?
I think that this whole misunderstanding has come about because only The Plaintiff can approach the Court for a postponement, even in the event of The Defendant requesting such. So, easy to assume wrongly that The McCanns want this, when in fact it is much more likely to be Amaral.
And why would The McCanns make Amaral any sort of offer when they can just walk away? What people think is irrelevant.
If the McCanns just withdraw at this point it would, for them, be absolute PR disaster and would be tantamount to admitting Amaral, and the investigation, had been right all along. It may also result in a charge of vexatious litigation against them.
If The McCanns settle in favour of Goncalo Amaral at their request, it will have the same negative effect.
It would depend on the terms of that settlement.
-
I don't think Mr. Amaral was waiting for anything from the UK (i.e. Mr. Bennett's case).
Just as a curiosity check this:
from Correio da Manhã newspaper, 18th February, 2013 [urlhttp://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pais-de-maddie-e-goncalo-amaral-falham-acordo][/url]:
«Fonte da defesa disse esta segunda-feira à agência Lusa que "as partes não chegaram a acordo" e que já pediu "a reativação da instância" na 1.ª Vara Cível de Lisboa, que terá agora de marcar nova data para o início do julgamento.»
Raw translation: A source from the defense told Lusa Agency (not a particular newspaper, but a national news agency) that the parts didn't reach an agreement and they have already demanded a "reactivation of the case" in the 1st Vara Cível de Lisboa (a Lisbon Court) that will have to schedule a new date for the beginning of the trial.
-
The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they? The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.
-
The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they? The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.
THis is so reflective of Anti thinking- when a settlement is suggested it indicates that the McCanns are running away, but when no settlement is reached, that does not (to the [ censored word]) indicate the determination of the McCanns to progress their case.
SAme mindset as arguido equals suspect, dearguidofication does not man that they are not suspects.
EIther Or in each case!
-
The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they? The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.
I believe that when the trial was called off at the last minute, a period of six months was allowed in order for the parties to negotiate a sttlement out of court
In that case, I suppose it might be that the McCanns, presuming it was they who asked for the trial to be halted, offered terms to Amaral, who rejected them
There remains the possibility, does there not ( given the six month window ) that they may continue negotiations until the terms they offer finally meet with Amaral's demands ?
-
The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they? The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.
I believe that when the trial was called off at the last minute, a period of six months was allowed in order for the parties to negotiate a sttlement out of court
In that case, I suppose it might be that the McCanns, presuming it was they who asked for the trial to be halted, offered terms to Amaral, who rejected them
There remains the possibility, does there not ( given the six month window ) that they may continue negotiations until the terms they offer finally meet with Amaral's demands ?
A period of 30 days was given, and not six months. They would not have asked for a postponement without some indication from Amaral that a settlement was possible.
They retained at all times the right to refuse a settlement offer, and to go back to The Court, which is what they have done. That hardly sounds as though they are very keen to settle.
-
The McCanns can't have been that keen to settle, can they? The Trial is back on, and obviously at their request.
I believe that when the trial was called off at the last minute, a period of six months was allowed in order for the parties to negotiate a sttlement out of court
In that case, I suppose it might be that the McCanns, presuming it was they who asked for the trial to be halted, offered terms to Amaral, who rejected them
There remains the possibility, does there not ( given the six month window ) that they may continue negotiations until the terms they offer finally meet with Amaral's demands ?
A period of 30 days was given, and not six months. They would not have asked for a postponement without some indication from Amaral that a settlement was possible.
They retained at all times the right to refuse a settlement offer, and to go back to The Court, which is what they have done. That hardly sounds as though they are very keen to settle.
You're guessing that though, aren't you ? ... given that the McCanns have said nothing about it
We don't know what has happened, although in view of the fact that the McCanns have made no denial of the reports in Portuguese press and TV, it is probably fair to assume it was they who called off the trial at the last minute
Whether or not they are keen to settle is unknown ... they might be desperate to settle for all we know, with their lawyers having told them there is a possibity they will lose if they proceed to trial
-
We are all guessing, since none of the interested parties have said anything. And rightly so. It just isn't done.
Why would Amaral not be keen to crow about this?
Sorry, I don't trust "Sources Close To."
-
We are all guessing, since none of the interested parties have said anything. And rightly so. It just isn't done.
Why would Amaral not be keen to crow about this?
Sorry, I don't trust "Sources Close To."
I'm assuming Amaral has been speaking about this latest turn of events, hence the reports in Portuguese press and TV stating it was the McCanns who were seeking an out of court settlement
It appears it is just the McCanns who have remained silent then
Perhaps, as you suggest, they do not feel it is 'the done thing' ... although I cannot think why
This case never reached court, so there is no question of undertakings having been made, or contempt to consider
At the moment it is just a case of the McCann's lawyers v's Amaral's lawyers, each doing what is best for their own client with no regard for the other party's welfare ... Lawyers aren't concerned with 'etiquette' ... as the UK Justice forum can testify
-
We are all guessing, since none of the interested parties have said anything. And rightly so. It just isn't done.
Why would Amaral not be keen to crow about this?
Sorry, I don't trust "Sources Close To."
I'm assuming Amaral has been speaking about this latest turn of events, hence the reports in Portuguese press and TV stating it was the McCanns who were seeking an out of court settlement
It appears it is just the McCanns who have remained silent then
Perhaps, as you suggest, they do not feel it is 'the done thing' ... although I cannot think why
This case never reached court, so there is no question of undertakings having been made, or contempt to consider
At the moment it is just a case of the McCann's lawyers v's Amaral's lawyers, each doing what is best for their own client with no regard for the other party's welfare ... Lawyers aren't concerned with 'etiquette' ... as the UK Justice forum can testify
You can assume whatever you like. You don't actually know that what is in The Portuguese Press isn't just propaganda. You don't actually know that Amaral has said anything.
The Case is now back on The Court List at a time to be yet determined. Although I don't understand your remark about "Contempt" since there doesn't appear to have been any.
Lawyers are very much concerned with Court Etiquette, but I can't help you if you do not understand this.