MORALS

[sadie]

BUMPED:  A very well thought out and presented post by Mo Stache which seems to have been overlooked

.......................

If Amaral had indeed donated all his money to charity then he could have produced record of such as proof that he can't pay his debts. As no money has been found, I put it to you, that:

-It's a lie. Money wasn't donated to any charity.
-Money was donated, but no record kept. Which would have been very unwise considering the financial situation he is in with Revenue and others he owes money to.
-Money was donated, but he refuses to produce record of such. Which is also unwise as it could be used as proof of his honourable charitable nature. And it would go a long way in helping him come to some sort of financial agreement with the people he owes money to. 

Then one also has to ask (as has been asked):
-Why donate ALL the money when he needs it to pay his debts?
-Why is there no record of this money?
-Why does he not want anyone to know where the money went?
-Has Amaral set up a false charity so that he can move the money into it?
-Has Amaral moved (untraceable) the money to an offshore bank account?
-And if so, why go to such lengths keeping transactions untraceable/hidden?

IF Amaral has nothing to hide, why not produce the evidence of the money earned and or donated?

Keep in mind:
-his publishers and the book retailers will have record of sales.
-those who paid him for interviews will have record of their expenditure.
-other companies and or organisations who donated to him will have record of their donations. 
-he wouldn't have received large amounts of money in cash, there must be some record of it, but may have been palced under someone else's name.
-people facing divorce have creative ways of hidding money from their soon to be ex's.

It's hidden
-implies that money received might not be in his name. One has to ask why?
-no record of movement of money can be found. One has to ask why?
-Charitable donations can be traced and thus doesn't fall under the category of 'hidden'.

Come on guys, let's have the evcidence of Amarals Charitable giving
.... and of money earned

[icabodcrane]

BUMPED:  A very well thought out and presented post by Mo Stache which seems to have been overlooked

.......................

If Amaral had indeed donated all his money to charity then he could have produced record of such as proof that he can't pay his debts. As no money has been found, I put it to you, that:

-It's a lie. Money wasn't donated to any charity.
-Money was donated, but no record kept. Which would have been very unwise considering the financial situation he is in with Revenue and others he owes money to.
-Money was donated, but he refuses to produce record of such. Which is also unwise as it could be used as proof of his honourable charitable nature. And it would go a long way in helping him come to some sort of financial agreement with the people he owes money to. 

Then one also has to ask (as has been asked):
-Why donate ALL the money when he needs it to pay his debts?
-Why is there no record of this money?
-Why does he not want anyone to know where the money went?
-Has Amaral set up a false charity so that he can move the money into it?
-Has Amaral moved (untraceable) the money to an offshore bank account?
-And if so, why go to such lengths keeping transactions untraceable/hidden?

IF Amaral has nothing to hide, why not produce the evidence of the money earned and or donated?

Keep in mind:
-his publishers and the book retailers will have record of sales.
-those who paid him for interviews will have record of their expenditure.
-other companies and or organisations who donated to him will have record of their donations. 
-he wouldn't have received large amounts of money in cash, there must be some record of it, but may have been palced under someone else's name.
-people facing divorce have creative ways of hidding money from their soon to be ex's.

It's hidden
-implies that money received might not be in his name. One has to ask why?
-no record of movement of money can be found. One has to ask why?
-Charitable donations can be traced and thus doesn't fall under the category of 'hidden'.

Come on guys, let's have the evcidence of Amarals Charitable giving
.... and of money earned

Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own.  'Tracing'  the money of an innocent man  is preposterous  ...  and he IS at this moment,  innocent of libel against the McCanns   (  in the eyes of the law  ) 
 
What if he wins this case sadie  ?   ....  you understand that is a possibility,  don't you  ?

[sadie]

Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own.  'Tracing'  the money of an innocent man  is preposterous  ...  and he IS at this moment,  innocent of libel against the McCanns   (  in the eyes of the law  ) 
 
What if he wins this case sadie  ?   ....  you understand that is a possibility,  don't you  ?

Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....

The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating!  She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked.  Four times she axed herself, until she died !!

... They all prove that !

[icabodcrane]

Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....

The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating!  She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked.  Four times she axed herself, until she died !!

... They all prove that !

ah,  then you have already decided that should Amaral win this libel trial  it will inevitably be a case of perverse and corrupt Portuguese justice 

I'm afraid your entrenched,  and  frankly,  obsessional bias,  precludes any rational debate

[Redblossom]

ah,  then you have already decided that should Amaral win this libel trial  it will inevitably be a case of perverse and corrupt Portuguese justice 

I'm afraid your entrenched,  and  frankly,  obsessional bias,  precludes any rational debate

100 per cent well said
 

[sadie]

Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....

The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating!  She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked.  Four times she axed herself, until she died !!

... They all prove that !

Why do you ignore these pointers Icabod ?
Do you not believe in Justice, fair Justice ?

[Mo Stache]

Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own.  'Tracing'  the money of an innocent man  is preposterous  ...  and he IS at this moment,  innocent of libel against the McCanns   (  in the eyes of the law  ) 
 
What if he wins this case sadie  ?   ....  you understand that is a possibility,  don't you  ?

His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.

People win and lose cases on technicalities, but it doesn't mean they innocent. Like wise people who are innocent have been found guilty. Look where you are. On the Justice forum, where people have posted on how injustice has been done to them or others they know of. The law doesn't always work the way it should, because there are so many different aspects to consider and then there are 'loopholes' in the law that as yet haven't been closed.

For example. Many see the overturning of the book ban in Portugal as a right to spread the information in the book, but forget that the case was about freedom of expression. Amarals freedom of expression was upheld and the ban was lifted, but that does not equate to the information/the expression being correct. That is a different aspect of the case. Amaral has the right to his freedom of expression/speech, but there are certain responsibilities (it's not an exclusive right) that go along with that right (well in the UK there is!). Within the right to freedom of speech and expression you still have to uphold the rights of others not to be libelled. Now I am not sure how that translates in Portuguese law and, Amaral might well win the libel case, because the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression. It depends greatly on which legal system is at play.

Amaral has allegedly libelled the McCann's. In the UK he would never win the case here, but in Portugal he might just, but that doesn't change the fact that he has libelled them and that he has financially gained from it.

It's a mixed up world we live in, ask those who have ended up at the wrong end of the Portuguese legal system.



... added allegedly since libel has not been proven....

[stephen25000]

His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.

People win and lose cases on technicalities, but it doesn't mean they innocent. Like wise people who are innocent have been found guilty. Look where you are. On the Justice forum, where people have posted on how injustice has been done to them or others they know of. The law doesn't always work the way it should, because there are so many different aspects to consider and then there are 'loopholes' in the law that as yet haven't been closed.

For example. Many see the overturning of the book ban in Portugal as a right to spread the information in the book, but forget that the case was about freedom of expression. Amarals freedom of expression was upheld and the ban was lifted, but that does not equate to the information/the expression being correct. That is a different aspect of the case. Amaral has the right to his freedom of expression/speech, but there are certain responsibilities (it's not an exclusive right) that go along with that right (well in the UK there is!). Within the right to freedom of speech and expression you still have to uphold the rights of others not to be libelled. Now I am not sure how that translates in Portuguese law and, Amaral might well win the libel case, because the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression. It depends greatly on which legal system is at play.

Amaral has allegedly libelled the McCann's. In the UK he would never win the case here, but in Portugal he might just, but that doesn't change the fact that he has libelled them and that he has financially gained from it.

It's a mixed up world we live in, ask those who have ended up at the wrong end of the Portuguese legal system.


.... added allegedly since libel has not been proved ...

Libel has yet to be proved in the Portuguese Court.

[Mr Moderator]

Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court.  Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.

[sadie]

Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court.

By those standards, I presume posters may not intimate that The Mccanns are Criminally guilty  of anything either?

A level playing field please.

[Rachel Granada]

Did Amaral pay back his brother and settle his other debts before he donated this money to charity?

And if not, why not?

[Redblossom]

Did Amaral pay back his brother and settle his other debts before he donated this money to charity?

And if not, why not?

None of your business is it? Peoples personal financial situations

have YOU done all your tax returns always, delayed paying HMG or reneged on a debt with any friends or family? or cheated the system at any time for x y z reasons? Exactly, none of my business.
 

[Rachel Granada]

Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court.  Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.

Can we have the libels and smears against Kate and Gerry McCann on this site treated in the same way then?

[Rachel Granada]

Carter Ruck

It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.

Welcome to the forum, Sheila.  Thanks for the CR quote - it makes great sense!

[icabodcrane]

His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.

At this moment Amaral is innocent of the accusations you make above  (  in the eyes of the law  ) 

Should he be found guilty of libel then his finances would become  of concern to the McCanns ...   should he found innocent then the situation will remain as it is at present  ...  that is to say,  Amaral's personal  finances are nobody's business but his own