Can Amaral sue for damages?

[Angelo222]

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.

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.

[Angelo222]

Could you elucidate?

Not on this thread.

[Carana]

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.

On what legal basis?

We're going around in circles here.

[Benice]

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.

If you think the police are going to bring a criminal prosecution against the McCanns because they sued Amaral over his book -and then lost the case, then be prepared to be disappointed.

AFAIK even in Portugal with it's baffling laws - its not a criminal offence to lose a case.

[Brietta]

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?

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.

[G-Unit]

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?

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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

Exactly G!

Write a different book? And wouldn't it be just like the thing for Kate n Gerry to have approved of his first draft? take out the bits they didn't like ie like most of it. Hahhahahahaha   some people on here make me laugh out loud.

I hope Amaral doesn't sue, I understand if he does, but he has wasted so much of his life with this pair, he will get closure and they have shown themselves up to be manipulating ,money grabbing, sympathy seeking, time wasters. They still have to explain  a lot that the twins will get to hear about eventually , when they ask questions.

[Carana]

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.

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

In your opinion Amaral had grounds to sue
In mine he has no grounds
You should qualify your posts to that effect

[Robittybob1]

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.

Wouldn't Amaral's claim be against the Court?

[G-Unit]

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.

Several hypotheses have been promoted and not one of them has been proved to be correct. Therefore the conclusions reached by the investigation in September 2007 are still as valid as any others.

[Angelo222]

In your opinion Amaral had grounds to sue
In mine he has no grounds
You should qualify your posts to that effect

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.

[Angelo222]

Wouldn't Amaral's claim be against the Court?

Of course not Robbie.  Courts are like referees, they decide things for others.

[Benice]

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

[John]

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

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?