Amaral V McCann trial

What do you think or know?
Is it possible to let withdrawn pieces of the files???
On another forum I did read that it is possible that the McCanns try (perhaps these days) to let pieces withdraw.
I can not at all believe that such a thing is possible.
It would make the Portuguese ministers look like incredible imbeciles.

Carolina wrote:Let's try another analogy:

Suspects hamper a criminal investigation from the very beginning, using their political connections to close a case against them. The ex-coordinator writes a book based on the police files already made public. The suspects than sue the policeman for speaking the truth and exposing a great miscarriage of justice because their goal is to keep the public from knowing what really happened.

For the McCanns the TRUTH must be banned at all costs.

That's a good and simple summing up of events.

T4two wrote:

In the scope of the process, a preventive order to seize goods was asked, yet unmet and awaiting the completion of diligences.

IMO the key line.

Failure to seize Dr. Amaral's assets is a huge setback for our celebrity bad parents because it means that they have failed to stop Dr. Amaral being able to defend the action. IMO making it impossible for Dr. Amaral to defend the action was an integral part of their strategy because the last thing they want is to appear in a court and have to give testimony under oath. If I hazard a guess I'd go for them withdrawing but that might be a bit expensive having had an injunction on book sales and copyright thus seriously damaging Dr. Amaral's and the publishers' business. Oh dear!

Very interesting, if true. His legal aid application, according to reports, declared an income of just under 40k euros and no goods or assets. If he still has the funds, then his application may be wrog, and why would he need the fund, in that case? And why is he moaning about how impoverished he is, and unable to defend the action due to the McCanns having taken all his money.

Anyone know if he will turn up in court?

How are we supposed to answer that, unless Mystic Meg is a member here?

Your halo is slipping, sans, and your nasty streak is showing.

The Famous Grouse wrote:How are we supposed to answer that, unless Mystic Meg is a member here?

Your halo is slipping, sans, and your nasty streak is showing.

Not at all - I was merely answering T4Two s post. According to that post, he is doubtful that the seizure order was executed. In which case he would not be deprived of funds. If there is any foundation to T4twos s post, it raises interesting questions. I assume questions are still permitted here?

As for halo - no, do not have one, as far as I can tell.

My views on Amaral are well known and have never been hidden.

Whether he will be in court is a perfectly reasonable question. There has been much speculation over whether the McCanns will be there, or whether they will even proceed with the case. Why do you object to similar questions being asked about Amaral, or is that forbidden? I was wondering whether will be there in person, or will he be represented by his legal team as is his right.

Just to clear some niggles up. Yes, I have contributed to his fund. No, it was not a nominal amount. No, I have not had a change of heart - I do not agree with Amarals actions, his writing his book, making his DVD or his other actions. No, I did not contribute to his fund for some sinister reason, as has been insinuated by several members here. My respect for justice overrides any personal distaste I have for the man or his actions and such such I do not feel that he should be denied his opportunity to put his case in court because of lack of funds.

If you have a problem with any of that, tough.

I'm inclined to think that they almost had todo this simply to survive.

But like the Luso-British citizen, the English couple was acquitted in July 2008 for the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the accidental death of the girl.
In Expresso/with Lusa 7.12.09

v.

In their statement today, the couple said ……. "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or has been seriously harmed."

and

In its apology today, the Daily Express - which sells around 700,000 copies a day in Britain - says it took the "unprecedented step" of making the apology on its front page.
"We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up," the newspaper adds.
"We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582177/Madeleine-McCann-parents-win-apology-from-Express-papers.html

If they don't tackle Amaral, and what is contained in the publicly official police files, the Express group, (and very many others), are almost obliged to question why. Furthermore all the questioning voices will automatically gain way too much power, - a situation which will never be reversed. When the twins are old enough, they will presumably ask for explanations too.

If they do manage to get the contents of the files 'officially retracted' or whatever, a vitally important obstacle to getting their message across is removed, - the possiblity of future 'pieces to camera' and fund-raising events is assured and Kate might even be a little nearer to realising her dreams of being an ambassador for child welfare.

Whatever they do they have a lot to gain but an awful lot more to lose, imo.
Well and truly hoisted by their own petard perhaps..?

Mary Poppins

I think the McCanns made a huge mistake in asking for 1.2 million Euros while at the same time trying to stop
Amaral"s means of earning money. This sum is more than double the Daily Express payment of £550,000 and
the DE is a huge Organisation well able to pay . I thought at one time the McCanns would drop the case, it may
well depend on these December hearings.

Agreed Beattie.

I find it difficult to see how they could possibly have let it got this far, particularly as a certain person clearly doesn't appear to be considered particularly important of late. But if they don't do something, (and do it well), it's pretty much curtains in more ways than one.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't - with no hope of a change in the situation until the whole truth comes out imo. A desperate shame for Madeleine, but I don't believe she's in a position to suffer anymore. Different for the twins though and imho it is them who will pay the ultimate price.

Yes, the poor twins.

FOR THEM the McCanns should
1st: justify themselves (police, court or whatever) and apologise for their refusals in the past and
2nd: force the police to re-open the case for their little daughter

Imo they act extremely heartless.

Madeleine doesn´t matter and the twins also.

Mary Poppins,

To drag their children into this suit shows just how insensitive they are, how can they include Madeleine
when for the last 2 years they havn"t seen her? To say they want to protect their children is rubbish. The twins
are in school and there will be gossip when the McCanns are photographed in Portugal. Also, they had no
shame in exploiting the twins in the Cutting Edge Docu, trying to portray happy families and reminding the
twins of their sister by painting her name.

Beattie wrote:Mary Poppins,

To drag their children into this suit shows just how insensitive they are, how can they include Madeleine
when for the last 2 years they havn"t seen her? To say they want to protect their children is rubbish. The twins
are in school and there will be gossip when the McCanns are photographed in Portugal. Also, they had no
shame in exploiting the twins in the Cutting Edge Docu, trying to portray happy families and reminding the
twins of their sister by painting her name.

Beattie, they included Madeleine because of the fund.
The fund wouldn´t pay without Madeleine "on board".

All that and more Beattie!

Seems to me that it’s often the little things that cause the most damage. For example the McCanns have made much of their being ‘into their friends’. I can’t begin to imagine the thoughts of the twins when they come to realise what that could mean and that not only did mummy and daddy leave them alone to have dinner with their friends at a distance akin to being at the bottom of an impressively large garden, but also…..

Imo the twins are highly likely to grow up to be intelligent enough to ask the obvious questions without any help from bloggers and forumers! And it really doesn’t seem fair to expect them to be satisfied with the explanation, for example, that mummy didn’t answer the PJs questions because she was frightened about what the police would do to her, or what Granny might say. And whatever they're told, history will tell them something different or give them something else to consider.

So wrong on so many levels.

Eta: Lilemor, - another very good question that will be difficult to answer imo.

Lilemor,

Yes, I know why they included Madeleine, but why did not the Directors of the Fund query this ? How the H*** can Madeleine be included when no one knows whether she is alive or dead? In the event that they win the
case, what happens to Madeleine"s share........it"s crazy.!!!!!!

Perhaps they feel if the do not put a stop to this book then others will write similar books. That could be the reason. And maybe more TV documentaries will be made. And we can't have that unless of course they are directed by you know who.

Mary Poppins

I think the McCanns will emigrate, they will always have the stigma of their daughter going missing because
they couldn"t stay in one night to care for their children.!!!!!

I"m going to watch Poirot now, he would have solved this mystery ages ago.

MaryB wrote:Perhaps they feel if the do not put a stop to this book then others will write similar books. That could be the reason. And maybe more TV documentaries will be made. And we can't have that unless of course they are directed by you know who.

But it is possible to stop the book in a legal way?
If Amaral stated only his own opinions (based on the report in the files) I can see no way a judge can stop his book.
I assume the only way to ban his book would be lies in it, obvious lies.

Wouldn't he just, Beattie!

MaryB,
I think you hit the nail right on the head in part! Trouble is, despite all the money and experts at their disposal, and no matter how much time passes, you only have to look at things like their interviews with Sandra to see that they seem incapable of getting it right and making things any better.

And I would have thought that by now things can only get worse. All jmo of course.

Why does the article in Expresso print lies such as the one where they say that the parents were acquitted when the investigation was shelved. Is this part of their PR campaign. Only in a trial in a courtroom can suspects be acquitted. The McCanns were not charged, they were not brought to trial, therefore, they were not acquitted.

Their arguidos status was automatically lifted when the case was shelved, in accordance with the Portuguese law and it would be reinstated if the case were reopened. The investigation found enough evidence to give them arguido status but the investigation after GA was taken off the case never found any evidence to exonerate them or to confirm the abduction theory. Therefore, the "solution" as Pinto Monteiro said, was to say that the evidence was insufficient. This decision was made to suit the parents and not to find out what happened to Madeleine.

The logic was that there was insufficient evidence to say that the 3 arguidos committed a crime but the fact remains that a crime was committed. Now, no effort is being made to solve this crime, which is the disappearance of a child. This is something unheard of in Portugal.
Now we understand why Kate says that it is not important whether the case is reopened or not.

It is not often that I agree with you, Carolina, but I suppose there has to be a first for everything.

You are quite right that the McCanns cannot have been aquitted as they were not charged in the first place, and are therefore in exactly the same position, legally, as anyone else.

A crime does seem to have been committed - but as it is impossible to determine what crime we seem to have reached a dead end.

It certainly is not after only a year and a half that a case is shelved, especially after so many diligences were not carried out. The investigation did not reach a dead end, it was stopped deliberately by the political powers.

Carolina wrote:It certainly is not after only a year and a half that a case is shelved, especially after so many diligences were not carried out. The investigation did not reach a dead end, it was stopped deliberately by the political powers.

Yes Carolina, the sovereign nation of Portugal stopped the legitimate investigation into how and why a 3 year old child went missing, after the officer leading the investigation was dismissed his post at the request of the unelected Prime Minister of Britain.

There is a certain fragrance in the air....... au de corruption.

Sky news reporting that "Gerry and Kate McCann to travel to Portugal tomorrow to launch libel action against former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral"

This should be interesting..

Thank you for that info Mary!

There'll probably be even more cranking up of dodgy newspaper articles over the next few days. I can't wait

Alfiefinn wrote:There'll probably be even more cranking up of dodgy newspaper articles over the next few days. I can't wait