I do believe I mentioned previously that actions have consequences and that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral will be entitled to substantial damages if he successfully defends the legal claim against him. There is always a danger with any litigation that it can backfire.
Until any further details make this clearer, it's sounding like a tabloid got their facts upside down yet gain and other tabs are copying it.
Time will tell...
It isn't rocket science Carana. Amaral could very well be entitled to sunstantial damages given that his assets have been frozen by the McCanns for years leaving him unable to function financially not to mention the rest of it.
I would think £434,000 is chickfeed and no doubt the McCanns have been advised to set money aside to meet such an eventuality should the Supreme Court uphold the last ruling by the Appeal Court.
It isn't rocket science Carana. Amaral could very well be entitled to sunstantial damages given that his assets have been frozen by the McCanns for years leaving him unable to function financially not to mention the rest of it.
I would think £434,000 is chickfeed and no doubt the McCanns have been advised to set money aside to meet such an eventuality should the Supreme Court uphold the last ruling by the Appeal Court.
I think his assets were frozen in Sept 2009, at the same time as the book was first banned? So that's 7 years interest for a start. Then there's loss of earnings due to the book banning. Then lawyer's fees and other expenses. I guess it all adds up.
The McCanns didn't freeze his assets, the court did. So who would he sue?
The McCanns didn't freeze his assets, the court did. So who would he sue?
Where in the PT civil code is it stated that someone can claim the amount of damages to be reversed within the same process?
And, if he countersues, on what basis? It was the court that froze his assets.
I think his assets were frozen in Sept 2009, at the same time as the book was first banned? So that's 7 years interest for a start. Then there's loss of earnings due to the book banning. Then lawyer's fees and other expenses. I guess it all adds up.
k
- the interest has been accruing in the account frozen by the Courts for seven years
- Amaral has authored other books in the intervening period as well as becoming a celebrated media personality so there may be a certain difficulty for him in claiming 'loss of earnings'
- Amaral's legal expenses have been covered by public subscription throughout ... so nothing to 'add up' there I imagine
k
The question of interest will be dealt with by the courts as part of the present case. If the Supreme Court upholds the Appeal Court decision no doubt Amaral's lawyer will apply for interest on the frozen funds just as Duarte did. He is also entitled to an amount towards his other costs. It's possible there will be claims from the other defendants also.
If Amaral is found innocent then he was clearly damaged by this case. At the very least he lost the use of his funds for seven years.
The problem for Amaral in pursuing a case along the lines you suggest is that the burden of proof lies with him.
The Courts will definitely demand to see his financial records as will the McCann lawyers (bet they can't wait).
Investigation of his finances has caused problems for him in the past ... then perhaps he is a man who learns nothing from history ... all may be revealed in the fullness of time ... bird in the hand and all that.
The problem for Amaral in pursuing a case along the lines you suggest is that the burden of proof lies with him.
The Courts will definitely demand to see his financial records as will the McCann lawyers (bet they can't wait).
Investigation of his finances has caused problems for him in the past ... then perhaps he is a man who learns nothing from history ... all may be revealed in the fullness of time ... bird in the hand and all that.
As to seeing financial records, that is precisely what could be asked of the Mccanns in the very near future.
Do you think he'll have a problem showing his assets were frozen for seven years? How so?
He will have no problem proving sales of his book were banned. Neither will his publishers.
Quite simply if Amaral sues the McCanns for causing him financial loss and hardship he is going to have to prove it and to do that his alleged losses will be evaluated. This will involve scrutiny of all the finances and assets available to him over the period referred to including, I imagine, those accrued from his career as a media celebrity.
Should he have transferred anything to his wife's name in the interim, I imagine it would be legitimate to scrutinise that also.
His legal expenses have been met by public subscription from the word go ... therefore having paid nothing from his own pocket towards them I cannot envisage a Court reimbursing him.
Make no mistake about it ... if Amaral sues ... the Courts will scrutinise his finances.
The Court will be very aware of the assets which were frozen and the restraint put on his income. The loss of earnings due to the civil action and the damages claim will be considerable which ever way one looks at it. And as already pointed out every defendant will be entitled to claim for losses as well.
My gut feeling on this one is that Amaral will not sue the McCanns whatever the decision of the Supreme Court.
Quite simply if Amaral sues the McCanns for causing him financial loss and hardship he is going to have to prove it and to do that his alleged losses will be evaluated. This will involve scrutiny of all the finances and assets available to him over the period referred to including, I imagine, those accrued from his career as a media celebrity.
Should he have transferred anything to his wife's name in the interim, I imagine it would be legitimate to scrutinise that also.
His legal expenses have been met by public subscription from the word go ... therefore having paid nothing from his own pocket towards them I cannot envisage a Court reimbursing him.
Make no mistake about it ... if Amaral sues ... the Courts will scrutinise his finances.
I'm really not sure about Portuguese law any more.
It allows Amaral to get away with accusing the McCanns of giving Madeleine calpol, when there's not a shred of evidence they even used it on that holiday, and nothing to contradict their insistence that they didn't.
Portuguese law is a mess.
I'm sure you will provide cites for that.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/apr/aced.htm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2993.msg107249#msg107249
I didn't ask for her statement or an unrelated post or a discussion on here. The judgement in the case against the PJ officers would be better.
My gut feeling on this one is that Amaral will not sue the McCanns whatever the decision of the Supreme Court.
Now let me see if I have this right:
The topic of this thread is: Can Amaral sue for damages?
There is no mention of who the defendants may be.
So is someone suggesting he can sue Cipriano for damages? That should be interesting so lets see yer workings then.
If not why does Cipriano even have a mention?
Oh yeah I forgot it's the McCann case variation of Godwins law....
I very much doubt he will. Too many pitfalls.
Dunno!
This is Portuguese law we're talking about ....
Dunno!
This is Portuguese law we're talking about ....
He is certainly within his rights but personally I imagine hes had enough of them and probBly wouldnt be as vindictive or money grabbing as they have definitely proved to e
Ergo a better person
What could he sue the McCanns for, though?
It was the court, not the McCanns, that granted the injunction on the sale of his book (and anyone interested had had lots of time to purchase a copy) and sequestered related income up to the time of that injunction.
Courts don't impose injunctions unless a request has been made for them to do so. Those applying are responsible, not the court.
Courts don't impose injunctions unless a request has been made for them to do so. Those applying are responsible, not the court.
Why? The court could have refused.I have been in a case where we 'won' a settlement of a million pounds. However, the company being sued had foreseen it would lose, and had repatriated all its assets to the parent company in the US. The UK subsidiary folded, the CEO announced he was leaving 'to spend more time with his family'. We didn't get a bean.
I have been in a case where we 'won' a settlement of a million pounds. However, the company being sued had foreseen it would lose, and had repatriated all its assets to the parent company in the US. The UK subsidiary folded, the CEO announced he was leaving 'to spend more time with his family'. We didn't get a bean.
I don't know whether Amaral could have done some variation of this. But the damages claimed by the McCanns were of sufficient magnitude that making sure there was money in the pot if they won must have made sense to the court.
Sorry to hear about that outcome for you, SIL.
It does make sense to me that the court may have suspected that assets might disappear (or be gobbled up for other reasons) and granted the sequestration of assets pending the trial proper.
However, I'm still having difficulty as to what he thinks that he could countersue the McCanns for. It's still a mystery to me.
Are you for real? A man has his life and his income destroyed, his assets frozen for years and you cannot see what his pursuers are liable for. I hope he sues their arses off for millions because they and only they are responsible. I also hope the police pursue criminal charges against all parties involved in the conspiracy against Goncalo.
What will the criminal charges be? And who are the... 'all parties involved' which you mention? What conspiracy are you referring to?
Are you for real? A man has his life and his income destroyed, his assets frozen for years and you cannot see what his pursuers are liable for. I hope he sues their arses off for millions because they and only they are responsible. I also hope the police pursue criminal charges against all parties involved in the conspiracy against Goncalo.
That's for the Portuguese police to determine but I would have thought that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and criminal interference with material witnesses would be a good starting point.
Yes, I am for real (otherwise it would be fairly unlikely that I would be able to post from Mars).
And no, I can't see the legal grounds on which he could accuse them.
- Who "destroyed his life"?
The PJ should never have left him floundering in such an investigation, when it should have been totally obvious that he didn't have any experience other than a totally botched investigation into another child's disappearance with an arguido status over a torture case concerning the mother.
After the 10 days (during which the GNR searched for her and unfortunately didn't find her), he should have been packed off on some other super-important mission elsewhere. A paid sabbatical in the Azores to research whether a particular species of indigenous marine life was being used as a drug mule in a remote coastal village in the Azores, or something.
No one obliged him to write a book or take part in a documentary, nor to become a media celebrity for financial benefit by insisting on his theory that Madeleine died in that apartment that night and that her parents staged a coverup. The implication of that is not only is there no point in searching for the missing child, but he was accusing her parents of at least one crime, and an insinuation as to another one.
And I have yet to read a single credible explanation by anyone as to how his theory could be plausible in practice. Even his most avid fans don't seem to have found a logical one without resorting to conspiracy theories.
If anything, I could understand his gripe at the fact that he wasn't given a face-saving opportunity by the PJ to get out before the proverbial had hit the fan about him. And the jury's out for me as to whether he actually left of his own volition. (It wasn't until recently that I learned about Cristovão's sanctions in the other missing child case and the fact that he got booted - but this only became public recently, i.e, without checking dates again, around 10 years later).
He could have written a very different book, for which he would probably have got sympathy over the difficulties of such an investigation, while at least leaving the conclusion open as to what may have happened to Madeleine. But he didn't do that, did he?
- What do you mean about a conspiracy against Amaral? I'm not aware of one.
Could you elucidate?
You're way off target on this one, the background to the book is no longer relevant. The McCanns chose to pursue Mr Amaral in a Portuguese civil court for substantial damages and as part of their claim they requested that a restraint order be applied resulting in his book and dvd being taken off the shelves and his assets frozen for several years.
The appeal court has now ruled in favour of Mr Amaral and against the McCanns, the outcome of the further appeal to the Supreme Court being awaited. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision by the Appeal Court Mr Amaral will be free to sue the McCanns for everything he has lost, for loss of income and for damages.
That's for the Portuguese police to determine but I would have thought that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and criminal interference with material witnesses would be a good starting point.
Yes, I am for real (otherwise it would be fairly unlikely that I would be able to post from Mars).
And no, I can't see the legal grounds on which he could accuse them.
- Who "destroyed his life"?
The PJ should never have left him floundering in such an investigation, when it should have been totally obvious that he didn't have any experience other than a totally botched investigation into another child's disappearance with an arguido status over a torture case concerning the mother.
After the 10 days (during which the GNR searched for her and unfortunately didn't find her), he should have been packed off on some other super-important mission elsewhere. A paid sabbatical in the Azores to research whether a particular species of indigenous marine life was being used as a drug mule in a remote coastal village in the Azores, or something.
No one obliged him to write a book or take part in a documentary, nor to become a media celebrity for financial benefit by insisting on his theory that Madeleine died in that apartment that night and that her parents staged a coverup. The implication of that is not only is there no point in searching for the missing child, but he was accusing her parents of at least one crime, and an insinuation as to another one.
And I have yet to read a single credible explanation by anyone as to how his theory could be plausible in practice. Even his most avid fans don't seem to have found a logical one without resorting to conspiracy theories.
If anything, I could understand his gripe at the fact that he wasn't given a face-saving opportunity by the PJ to get out before the proverbial had hit the fan about him. And the jury's out for me as to whether he actually left of his own volition. (It wasn't until recently that I learned about Cristovão's sanctions in the other missing child case and the fact that he got booted - but this only became public recently, i.e, without checking dates again, around 10 years later).
He could have written a very different book, for which he would probably have got sympathy over the difficulties of such an investigation, while at least leaving the conclusion open as to what may have happened to Madeleine. But he didn't do that, did he?
- What do you mean about a conspiracy against Amaral? I'm not aware of one.
Quote
He could have written a very different book, for which he would probably have got sympathy over the difficulties of such an investigation, while at least leaving the conclusion open as to what may have happened to Madeleine. But he didn't do that, did he?
Carana
End quote
What could anyone learn about the appropriate methodology of conducting a police investigation into the case of a missing child? What could be learned from Amaral's account about what was carried out well and what could have been improved upon for future reference?
Who knows if a book based solely on the facts and written by a professional for professionals would have hit the best sellers list ... at the time it probably would have.
What did it add to the narrative to portray the grief and anguish of the parents of a missing child in the insensitive manner he employed?(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UxGhlYTNisw/hqdefault.jpg)
Not only could he have written a different book ... he should have. How different the lives of all concerned might have been had he done so.
According to the courts Amaral's book was based on the facts of the investigation. It followed the facts and the conclusion of the investigation as at 3rd September 2007. Nothing since has proved that conclusion wrong, it is still as valid as any other theory.
According to the courts Amaral's book was based on the facts of the investigation. It followed the facts and the conclusion of the investigation as at 3rd September 2007. Nothing since has proved that conclusion wrong, it is still as valid as any other theory.
You're way off target on this one, the background to the book is no longer relevant. The McCanns chose to pursue Mr Amaral in a Portuguese civil court for substantial damages and as part of their claim they requested that a restraint order be applied resulting in his book and dvd being taken off the shelves and his assets frozen for several years.
The appeal court has now ruled in favour of Mr Amaral and against the McCanns, the outcome of the further appeal to the Supreme Court being awaited. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision by the Appeal Court Mr Amaral will be free to sue the McCanns for everything he has lost, for loss of income and for damages.
You're way off target on this one, the background to the book is no longer relevant. The McCanns chose to pursue Mr Amaral in a Portuguese civil court for substantial damages and as part of their claim they requested that a restraint order be applied resulting in his book and dvd being taken off the shelves and his assets frozen for several years.Wouldn't Amaral's claim be against the Court?
The appeal court has now ruled in favour of Mr Amaral and against the McCanns, the outcome of the further appeal to the Supreme Court being awaited. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision by the Appeal Court Mr Amaral will be free to sue the McCanns for everything he has lost, for loss of income and for damages.
But nothing has proven it to be correct, either.
In fact, no one on here (unless I blinked and missed it) can make his theory work in practice. And the thread on what Amaral actually got right is still one of the shortest on this forum, yet there are numerous sceptics on here who could have contributed if they'd wished to.
Why would his greatest fans invent wild conspiracy theories if his theory was plausible? Surely, they wouldn't need to.
In theory, if some nutter had made a police statement to the effect that the McCanns were responsible for the current crisis in the Middle East, or that the McCanns had transformed the moon into green cheese, he would in theory be free to reiterate that on any TV show that will host him, simply because some lunatic had said so.
How can anyone in the sceptic community applaud his theory as being the "truth", while apologising for so-called "minor" errors, such as she a) never existed, or b) died days earlier than what he believed happened or c) any one of the bizarre and unsubstantiated explanations?
With a few exceptions over time, most sceptics on here appear to be lucid enough to realise that his understanding of key issues appears to be somewhat flawed.
In your opinion Amaral had grounds to sue
In mine he has no grounds
You should qualify your posts to that effect
Wouldn't Amaral's claim be against the Court?
As it stands at the minute Amaral has repelled the McCanns civil action against him. The McCanns have exercised their right to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. Should they subsequently lose and the Supreme Court upholds the judgement by the Appeal Court then Amaral is free to sue for loss of earnings and damages. Your repeated claim that he has no grounds to sue is uninformed and simply wrong.
Loss of earnings in relation to what? It can't be from loss of sales of his book - as just as the McCann had no way of quantifying how many people believed Madeleine was dead as a result of reading his book - he has no way of quantifying how many people would have bought his book if it had remained on sale. Those who had already bought it would not not be buying it again and thanks to his his fans - the book was freely available on line anyway.
He can't claim for loss of earnings because of being unemployed - as that was his own choice.
So what could he claim for?
The only people I can see who would qualify to be sued are those who distributed his book for free on line - and without his permission apparently.
AIMHO
Loss of earnings in relation to what? It can't be from loss of sales of his book - as just as the McCann had no way of quantifying how many people believed Madeleine was dead as a result of reading his book - he has no way of quantifying how many people would have bought his book if it had remained on sale. Those who had already bought it would not not be buying it again and thanks to his his fans - the book was freely available on line anyway.
He can't claim for loss of earnings because of being unemployed - as that was his own choice.
So what could he claim for?
The only people I can see who would qualify to be sued are those who distributed his book for free on line - and without his permission apparently.
AIMHO
It didn't need Amaral for people!e to believe Madeleine was dead.
Why do you persist in this in the myth that it was all down to him ?
He clearly lost earnings and would he have left the PJ, but for the Mccanns ?
There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.
There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.
Loss of earnings and damages?
For what?
Proclaiming (I will defer to the mealy-mouthed) that Kate and Gerry 'caused the death' (of Madeleine) with an overdose of calpol, when there is nothing to contradict the McCanns' insistence that, while they had calpol with them on that holiday (an odd thing to 'admit' if they had something sinister to hide in respect of its use) they didn't use it.
Proclaiming that Harrison said Madeleine was 'buried' (somewhere or another), when Harrison frankly admitted he had no clue what happened to Madeleine, nor even whether she was alive or dead.
Proclaiming that he (Amaral) corrected and contradicted Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, and that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest.
These are all false allegations that denigrate(d) the McCanns
And people talk about loss of earnings and damages.
To Amaral?
Really?
Whoever the Supreme Court rules in favour of ... there is still the option of the European Court to be considered.
Whoever the Supreme Court rules in favour of ... there is still the option of the European Court to be considered.
Whose actions initiated this case ferryman ?
It wasn't Amaral, was it .
He has been repeatedly attacked by the McCann's and their devoted followers for doing his job.
Now if the McCann's had done theirs.......
Whose actions caused what?
The libel trial?
Amaral's action in writing a book of lies and smear caused that.
And he may be set to profit from it.
Disgraceful.
I might be able to clarify this particular issue. Gonçalo Amaral has lost a substantial amount of income due to the restraint order which the McCanns sought and were granted against him. He will have to provide a break down of losses and potential losses attributable to his pursuers. In order to agreed those losses, the Court will look at several factors. At the end of the day though, the damages should be agreed but if that is not possible then the judge will decide what is fair and commensurate.
The McCanns sued Amaral for £1 million so the question too is, what justified such a sum?
There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.
It is entirely wrong to assume Amaral has the legal right to any claim
Anyone with enough funds can sue others. It's winning that's the problem.
Anyone with enough funds can sue others. It's winning that's the problem.
Amaral may well have no grounds to sue the McCanns on the basis that it was the court who froze his funds not the McCanns. You and others are making an assumption when you have no real knowledge of the legal position.
What happened to the sceptics claim that Murat was suing Jane Tanner
Another load of rubbish
Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.
Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.was the money ever paid over?
Amaral may well have no grounds to sue the McCanns on the basis that it was the court who froze his funds not the McCanns. You and others are making an assumption when you have no real knowledge of the legal position.
What happened to the sceptics claim that Murat was suing Jane Tanner
Another load of rubbish
Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.
A court will have to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation.
Nobody sues the court, do you understand anything about how the justice system works?The taxpayers then, the Portuguese Government whatever. It shouldn't be the the McCanns who have to repay Amaral if the Court awarded the money and it was used up since then. It would be a different situation if the funds have been frozen till all the appeals have been decided. In which case no money has changed hands at all as yet.
The taxpayers then, the Portuguese Government whatever. It shouldn't be the the McCanns who have to repay Amaral if the Court awarded the money and it was used up since then. It would be a different situation if the funds have been frozen till all the appeals have been decided. In which case no money has changed hands at all as yet.
Don't be silly. If a Court awards costs against someone, who do you think should pay, if not that person?IF and it is a very BIG IF, the Courts made a mistake in awarding costs against Amaral, then surely they should take responsiblity and repay those costs from government funds. IMO.
Don't be silly. If a Court awards costs against someone, who do you think should pay, if not that person?that is not my point. My point involves the appeals and who should compensate then. Sadie sees it my way.
that is not my point. My point involves the appeals and who should compensate then. Sadie sees it my way.
Have the McCanns been able to spend the money that was awarded in the first judgement or has it been always pending on the outcomes of the appeal court and now the Supreme Court?
was the money ever paid over?
The McCanns applied for an injunction to freeze Amaral's assets. They froze his assets so they could have them when they won the damages trial.So if the McCanns also win the case they will get the interest for the last 7 years as well I presume.
At this moment in time they have lost the damages trial. In law Amaral is innocent.
An innocent man has been deprived of his assets for seven years. If the judgement stands he will get his assets back, probably with interest added to them.
Is that it? If someone freezes your funds for seven years is it enough that you get them back with interest? I think the seven years of being prevented from spending your own money will also be taken into account somewhere along the line. It is the responsibility of those who applied for the freezing order to compensate the person who suffered because of it.
So if the McCanns also win the case they will get the interest for the last 7 years as well I presume.They asked for interest on top of their damages claim when they brought the case (because it never was about money you see)
They asked for interest on top of their damages claim when they brought the case (because it never was about money you see)That will come in handy.
Presumably if they ultimately win they will get the interest claimed
Nobody sues the court, do you understand anything about how the justice system works?
That will come in handy.
Yep money always is handyThey will be able to put up some new posters in and around Praia du Luz
They will be able to put up some new posters in and around Praia du Luz
They will be able to put up some new posters in and around Praia du Luz
Little point if some organised yobs keep pulling them downThis time there will be rejoicing!
Gerry McCann understood the feelings in Luz, but still felt he was doing the right thing making a film highlighting the resort again;What a thoroughly empathetic and decent bloke!
Gerry McCann singled out the local community for praise and expressed appreciation for all the sacrifices they have been forced to endure the past two years, such as the negative impact the case has had on jobs and tourism in the area.
“They don’t want the media intrusion and the negative association with Madeleine’s abduction. For me, and this is going right back to 2007 – I didn’t feel any evil around Praia da Luz or anywhere else in Portugal. What happened here could have happened anywhere in the world”
“I am sorry for any harm caused to Praia da Luz”
But I do hope people understand why we are doing what we’ve done. This is a key factor in an investigation strategy. Madeleine is still missing. We need to do everything reasonable to get any information. The best thing for everyone is that she is found and that whoever took her is caught”.
It’s about Madeleine. As her parents, I hope people understand that we have to do what we are doing”, argued Mr McCann.
PORTUGAL NEWS SATURDAY 11 APRIL 2009
What a thoroughly empathetic and decent bloke!
He still seems to lack foresight though, doesn't he? Dr Wise After The Event McCann.For a minute there I thought you were implying Mr McCann was Jewish. That's what happens when you read a post quickly.
For a minute there I thought you were implying Mr McCann was Jewish. That's what happens when you read a post quickly.
Some seem to think he might be lol.Lol indeed. What foresight do you believe Gerry should have possessed, that he didn't? Should he have foreseen on the evening of 3rd May that leaving his kids alone would lead to a child's disappearance, world-wide publicity for his family, the prospect of being sued by a Portuguese ex-cop, the opprobrium and hatred of a sizeable percentage of the world's population? Shame on him for his lack of foresight! Any fool could have predicted all of this surely?
What a thoroughly empathetic and decent bloke!
Little point if some organised yobs keep pulling them downWhen did this become 'organised'?
When did this become 'organised'?
Some seem to think he might be lol.
Should you listen to Arlo's song purportedly about my restaurant all is revealed at the end. It is almost worth the 16 minute wait.......... 8(0(*
I think I'd class it as more of a movement, Alice.
I would have thought the gratuitous defacing of billboards was more Group W ?{)(**
I would have thought the gratuitous defacing of billboards was more Group W ?{)(**What does "group W" mean?
What does "group W" mean?
You'll need to read the lyrics to Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Massacree to find out.
In five part harmony of course!