Exploring the reason why Dr Amaral wanted to exclude the Press from libel case.

[AnneGuedes]

Amarals "theory" ruled the waves.

Certainly not yours.

[Erngath]

"When you eventually lose that fixation and realise that your rather unreal position of never having done something you later regret and which will live as the deepest and darkest regret in your heart for the rest of your life then you may be able to understand the position that pro McCanns hold. There but for the grace of God..."

Indeed.

[AnneGuedes]

In what other ways could it be achieved  ?

Hiring private detectives to look into Amaral's professional and private life with the intention of  bringing about ruin in both  ?  ....  the use of intimidation and strong-arm legal tactics that would ensure financial crippling  ?  ...  hiring media experts to enable the smearing and denouncement of Amaral in the press  ? 

I think perhaps it is fair to assume that this court case is  the Last Chance Saloon

Yes. If both parts just wanted the other one to put an end to its doxa.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't remember any "aggressive" promotion. The Fnac had huges piles of it, but the week before had huge piles of "The girl who played with fire"...
I'm curious to know what makes you have "no doubt that his intentions were simply financial/egoistic".

I understood that Amaral made a number of appearances on Portuguese TV, and also in Spain, and that his idea had been disseminated across the media in those countries and elsewhere in Europe too.

As to his motivations, professional people of all descriptions deal with interesting cases every day, and they don't choose to write books about the people they profess to be helping. Writing a book like that is not done in order to help a client/ former client, or someone one was serving in one's job, and it is not done to promote one's literary skills. Amaral chose to write about this case - rather than any other of the cases he had been involved in -  having ample reason to believe it would be a bestseller.

[Luz]

I understood that Amaral made a number of appearances on Portuguese TV, and also in Spain, and that his idea had been disseminated across the media in those countries and elsewhere in Europe too.

As to his motivations, professional people of all descriptions deal with interesting cases every day, and they don't choose to write books about the people they profess to be helping. Writing a book like that is not done in order to help a client/ former client, or someone one was serving in one's job, and it is not done to promote one's literary skills. Amaral chose to write about this case - rather than any other of the cases he had been involved in -  having ample reason to believe it would be a bestseller.

Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.

He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his  retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.

As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.

In early June 2007 I was an active member in the Mirror Forum, long before the book, and I was already questioning the McCann version of events.

[AnneGuedes]

Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.

He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his  retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.

As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.

Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.

I suppose the outcome of the trial will tell us something about his motivations. If he is convicted of libelling the McCanns, i.e. causing them harm, that has to have involved the intent to cause harm (as far as I understand).

If he is exonerated then we are obliged to take him at his word.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.

He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his  retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.

As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.

In early June 2007 I was an active member in the Mirror Forum, long before the book, and I was already questioning the McCann version of events.

He is entitled to defend his honour, just like the rest of us - as long as he doesn't defame anyone else in the process.

I still don't understand, however, how his book can have contributed to the quest for truth as far as Madeleine goes, when his conclusions were based on unproven assertions and suspect and inconclusive science. At the end of the day, we still don't know what has happened to Madeleine -so how can we say that his book has been of assistance?

[AnneGuedes]

That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.

But weren't the McCanns, with the authority of parents and victims, "making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report" stating the child had been abducted ?

Edited to change "abducted" into "abducted from bed", because any different kind of abduction is as taboo as all other theories.

[AnneGuedes]

He is entitled to defend his honour, just like the rest of us - as long as he doesn't defame anyone else in the process.

I still don't understand, however, how his book can have contributed to the quest for truth as far as Madeleine goes, when his conclusions were based on unproven assertions and suspect and inconclusive science. At the end of the day, we still don't know what has happened to Madeleine -so how can we say that his book has been of assistance?

About defamation, let's wait what the judge will say, the question being whether you'll accept it or not.
About the effect of the book, the collaboration of the McCanns would have certainly more influenced the search, especially if they had requested the instruction inquiry.

[Luz]

Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.

I have an aunt and uncle that own a small enterprise in the vicinity of Praia da Luz. They were alerted on the evening/morning of 3 to 4 May. They called my brother that lives in Faro and he immediately went there - he took a week vacation from his job in order to help with the searches. My aunt and uncle offered to pay the salary to their employees that chose to help with the searches as long as they managed to keep the company running. They called me too, but at the time I was living in Lisbon and very loaded with work.
In any case, I first learned about the case from SkyNews on that same evening, before my aunt called me. When I first saw the news on the portuguese TV channels  and they said the children had been left alone in an apartment, a bell rang in my head.
After that I saw the McCann duo on TV and I learned from my brother that they, and their friends, had never moved their behinds to look for the little girl.
A few days later I went to Praia da Luz and I witnessed how the McCann and their relatives looked for little Madeleine gathering around the pool, taking tennis lessons, jogging, going to the beach, ...as if they were having the best days of their lives.
How could I believe them?!

[AnneGuedes]

I witnessed how the McCann and their relatives looked for little Madeleine gathering around the pool, taking tennis lessons, jogging, going to the beach, ...as if they were having the best days of their lives.
How could I believe them?!

At least getting the best possible out of horrible days. When the McCanns said that GA's theory of death prevented people to search for Madeleine, they knew what they were talking about, don't you think ?

[gilet]

But weren't the McCanns, with the authority of parents and victims, "making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report" stating the child had been abducted ?

Edited to change "abducted" into "abducted from bed", because any different kind of abduction is as taboo as all other theories.

Were on earth can you possibly get that rather obtuse idea?
By posting such inanity you are beginning to look like others today who are clutching at straws that are non-existent.
Have you not actually read the archival report?

Do you not realise that the archive report gave FOUR options as to what happened.

1  whether killed in a neglectful homicide

2. or an intended homicide,

3. whether the victim of a targeted abduction

4. or an opportunistic abduction

When the parents were claiming the abduction as what they believed happened they were in complete accord with the archival report.

And unlike Amaral who has definitively stated Madeleine is dead (though his lawyer has for some reason tried desperately to tone that down recently) they have not defintively (as you claim) ruled out other options.

Perhaps you have missed the interviews where the McCanns have admitted that there is a possibility that Madeleine is dead.

There is no proof of either scenario and the McCanns are entitled to suggest both are options but they believe the abduction is what happened.

Had they done as Amaral has done and rule out the alternative scenario to that which they believe in then and only then would they have been contradicting the Archival Report.

It is demonstrably Amaral who is contradicting the Archival Report not the McCanns.

[AnneGuedes]

Are you kidding, Ferryman ? 25 years ! Up to 2 years or a fine of up to 240 days for concealment of body.

I've just seen that Amanda Hutton was sentenced two-and-a-half years for preventing the lawful burial of her little boy.