McCanns/Amaral

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

Stupid/vindictive? Compared to what? Losing your home to two people who left their children unattended? Now, who is the really stupid one? Of yes, of course, Sofia is, because she has never put her children in this position and now, faced with losing the roof over her head, dares to get vindictive about it.

Well, I would rather move out and live in a lair and burn my house to the ground, than let those two get their hands on it.

While I think the actions of Gerry and David Payne were strange I certainly would not have assumed they were
pedophiles and the fact that they met up with the Mccanns again suggests there was no harm done. As for
Dr. Gaspar"s reference to David Payne bathing the children being unnatural I disagree, many Fathers today have hands on experience of childcare.

I think perhaps Amaral might have mentioned the suspicion regarding Payne and his Wife has taken it as Gospel.

Wallflower wrote:

Perhaps Penny lane.

I still think there would have to be other supporting evidence for making a claim like this in public.

But perhaps I'm being hypocritical, as I'm very happy to believe, based on the Gaspar statements (and say so on this forum.)

I am not disagreeing with you at all Wallflower. I have not discounted the Gaspar statements for an instant! Not when a little girl disappears into thin air the way Madeleine did, and not when the parents version of events has so many holes in it, and their phrases when discussing their child are chillingly cold and void of compassion!

I also believe it's about time people stood up for themselves against these bullies, and started giving the McCanns a taste of their own medicine. I believe Sofia is doing precisely that!

I say Go Sofia!!!

It's pretty standard procedure to try to secure his assets, but the house isn't fully his.

If the house is in his wife's name (even if only 50%) then there is nothing that can be done. She and the children have a right to a roof over their heads. No Judge will take that away from them. Especially if it's her income which is paying the mortgage.

And if it's 'only' worth 200K Euros, it's hardly worth the effort.

The best they can hope for is to receive the 'affirmation' of winning the case. It won't change much in the big scheme of things. They won't see much cash (if any at all) and people will always doubt them until either Madeleine turns up, or they and their friends finally agree to be interrogated fully and openly about May 3rd 2007.

And people will continue to want to read the book, probably in their tens of thousands.

This is kind of a preventive measure and it is quite common especially when it is suspected people don't have enough money to pay in case they lose. In that case, any assets are 'reserved' or 'seized' to ensure there are some values to use in case the person loses in court. If these things weren't done, people would simply get rid of everything they own to ensure that there was nothing left in case they lose in court.
I know of someone who had his car 'frozen' because he had no money and there was a case against him because he had called his neighbour a drug dealer and his neighbour sued him. The case was later dismissed and his car 'unfrozen'.

Keela wrote:

Lioned wrote:Dont look good for Amaral.We should kid ourselves not that if he's made assertions in his book that have not been substantiated then he's in trouble.

What is in the book is in the files. He has only stated his opinion that she died in the apartment. I have never heard anyone getting in trouble for stating an opinion. If that were the case, then just about everyone would be in trouble some time or other. It is my opinion that Colleen Rooney is better off without the two timing philandering sex pest she is married to.

I would like to clarify that GA nowhere in the book gives his opinion or spouts personal theories about the case. When he states that she died in the apartment, he is only quoting the report made by Tavares de Almeida which is based on the conclusions come to by both police forces. He can substantiate everything he wrote in the book and he was able to do so, with the police files and the testimony of his colleagues, during the oppositon hearing for the injunction in January and February. And this is what the McCanns want to avoid at all costs, facing him in court once again. Despite the verdit in their favour things did not go so well for them and a lot of damaging information came out. They are attempting to strangle him financially so that he would not be able to pay the court costs and his lawyer and to force him to an out of court settlement. I think that the fact that this story has come out confirms that GA and his family will not be cowtowed.

Claudia79 wrote:This is kind of a preventive measure and it is quite common especially when it is suspected people don't have enough money to pay in case they lose. In that case, any assets are 'reserved' or 'seized' to ensure there are some values to use in case the person loses in court. If these things weren't done, people would simply get rid of everything they own to ensure that there was nothing left in case they lose in court.
I know of someone who had his car 'frozen' because he had no money and there was a case against him because he had called his neighbour a drug dealer and his neighbour sued him. The case was later dismissed and his car 'unfrozen'.

His car was taken out of the freezer?

Greedy and vindictive people may manage to force money out of others, but it will never do them any good, I'm sure of that. The McCanns threw away their own reputation 3 years ago IMO and everything we hear only makes them sink further into the mire. No wonder some directors are getting out of the Fund and their celebrity friends are nowhere to be seen nowadays. Who would want to be in any way associated with these people? Their grubby behaviour is truly disgusting, their book-banning activities are repulsive to anyone who believes in free speech, their attitude towards the man who did more than anyone to try to find out what really happened to their daughter is sickening.

What price their Christianity now? Oh I forgot, there is a price - 1,200,000 euros - maybe when they get their hands on Dr Amaral's money they'll decide to show him their Christian forgiveness.

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

I don't think you're in any position to make a judgement that the statement was hysterical! You are also making the assumption here that her statement WAS based on the single Gaspar statement alone. It is possible that there are other things to base the statement on - and that it's neither vindictive or stupid.

By the way Sans souci - what "tabloid report" are you referring to.

Maybe Mr Gerry and his rellies will turn up at Bellahouston Park, begging yet more favours off their Pontiff Pal.

Carolina wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:This is kind of a preventive measure and it is quite common especially when it is suspected people don't have enough money to pay in case they lose. In that case, any assets are 'reserved' or 'seized' to ensure there are some values to use in case the person loses in court. If these things weren't done, people would simply get rid of everything they own to ensure that there was nothing left in case they lose in court.
I know of someone who had his car 'frozen' because he had no money and there was a case against him because he had called his neighbour a drug dealer and his neighbour sued him. The case was later dismissed and his car 'unfrozen'.

His car was taken out of the freezer?

It was. And his neighbour was later arrested. Guess what for?

Lioned wrote:Dont look good for Amaral.We should kid ourselves not that if he's made assertions in his book that have not been substantiated then he's in trouble.

Mr Amaral is a very intelligent guy, he would not be going along with all of this if he didn't stand by everything he has said and done, his family are important to him more than the Mccann case, he hasn't done anything wrong, all he will have put in pring is the truth which imo will be substantiated, if the McCanns are innocent then they have nothing to worry about do they, and Mr Amarals got it all to lose......NOT!!

It is just a threat. "Cave in or we'll have your house." I seem to remember certain pro blogs making the exact same threat to posters, three years ago. It's nothing more than desperation.

The Gaspar statement may have been 'vague, stupid or vindictive', but if someone said that about me - and lets not forget not only was this made in a statement which cannot be sued but was repeated in the Portuguese press - then l would have been beating down the door of the best solicitiors l could find. I want it sorted out PUBLICLY so it could not be rehashed again and again, l'd have sued every newspaper that printed it.

David Payne has failed to do this, why?

We don't know alot about David Payne but the following FACTS:
A social worker involved in child protection thought she 'recognised' him as soon as Maddie went missing.
A statement was made that he made inappropriate comments and gestures about Maddie on a previous holiday.
A statement was made that he usually bathed the children on holiday.
He admits visiting an apartment where children were supposedly bathing only hours before one of them went missing the SAME child he made the comments and gestures about.
He won't speak as he and his mates have a 'pact'.

Adding two and two together here does not make 6

The Famous Grouse wrote:It is just a threat. "Cave in or we'll have your house." I seem to remember certain pro blogs making the exact same threat to posters, three years ago. It's nothing more than desperation.

TFG,

I remember those threats well. Imo the action is shocking however it does not surprise me. Hopefully the Portuguese judicial system will nip this (imo) abomination in the bud! Especially given that victims of the Casa Pia case are only receiving 15000 - 25000 euros each in compensation. How could the courts justify such a large payout to the McC family? 1.2 million euros to share between the 5 of them. Hmm how can a missing child who I believe is a ward of court in the UK be included in this claim. Did her guardian grant permission for her inclusion? Dr G A has said in the past if he loses he will take this to the European Court of Human Rights. If this has to go that far I hope the ECHR see sense and put a stop to this imo madness! The McC's are supposed to be devout RC's yet they have notified Sofia Leal with a citation to proceed with a separation of assets in order to allow the arrest of a house! Surely that is an infringement of the human rights of Sofia Leal and an infringement of the human rights of the children? What right do the McC's have to request RC Sofia Leal and RC Dr Gonçalo Amaral to divorce? Imo the action above is not only an infringement of human rights it is an infringement on human dignity? Human dignity and imo the sanctity of marriage is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.

And regards Mr.Amaral...

TBH l think posters that say this is desperation are right. The last thing the Mcs need right now or in the future is another trial where newspaper can legitimately - without fear of being sued - print what info is coming out of the court. Their names are synonymous with child neglect, begging and bullying as it is.

In all honesty even if the Mcs win their compensation will be paltry l'm sure, let's not forget this whole episode would not have happened if they'd only stayed in that night, especially after their daughter asked them why they'd been neglected the night before, a fact which won't be lost on any judge.

And then there's the extended tapas scum, sorry group, can they honestly sit back and see a couple and their children lose everything when they know that very man is the only one fighting for Maddie?

No, l think that would be the straw that would break the camels back, there's no need for any of them to be in fear they only need to harbour a 'deal' to tell all, happens all the time with the police. FWIW l think the police know the score but without enough to press charges in Portgual Enlgish police can't do much, this is where the tapas group come in to end this with the only outcome, the guilty in jail and her body bought home to rest on properly consecrated ground.

Where is this all going to end. Sometimes I think it will all just fade quietly away. But wouldn't the publishers be responsible if anybody sued for liable because of a books contents.

Claudia79 wrote:This is kind of a preventive measure and it is quite common especially when it is suspected people don't have enough money to pay in case they lose. In that case, any assets are 'reserved' or 'seized' to ensure there are some values to use in case the person loses in court. If these things weren't done, people would simply get rid of everything they own to ensure that there was nothing left in case they lose in court.
I know of someone who had his car 'frozen' because he had no money and there was a case against him because he had called his neighbour a drug dealer and his neighbour sued him. The case was later dismissed and his car 'unfrozen'.

It is common practice, even if you don't pay your council tax, or a parking fine, you have some of your assets "penhorada" (frozen) I know this from first hand experience. Iif you don't pay up, or produce a receipt to prove you have paid then the baliffs come round and take your stuff. If obviously the bill is 1.2 million, they would take the house as well and other earnings.

In the paper today a story is about Carlos Cruz (Casa de Pia fellow) he sold all his assets before the court case last week and is now worth nothing!! He has some land that is mortgaged in Granola, and that is his only asset. His wife owns by the way a 2.5 million flat in Chiado, untouchable, as they got married, (like me and t'other half did) anything we each own is ours, not shared, so what is in her name is hers. I know Amaral is a lawyer,so he isn't daft by a long shot. So I wouldn't get worked up by this, let the vermin who write the papers give the grief out, but let's wait until we get concrete evidedence.

I was like everyone else, all up in the air, but after taking a breath, I think "Our Amaral" will be o.k.

Panda wrote:While I think the actions of Gerry and David Payne were strange I certainly would not have assumed they were
pedophiles and the fact that they met up with the Mccanns again suggests there was no harm done. As for
Dr. Gaspar"s reference to David Payne bathing the children being unnatural I disagree, many Fathers today have hands on experience of childcare.

I think perhaps Amaral might have mentioned the suspicion regarding Payne and his Wife has taken it as Gospel.

NO, NO, NO, you are way wrong, on two different occasions David Payne made provocative gestures allegedly towards children one being Madeleine and the other being his own daughter, strange Panda two seperate occasions no/yes, to me i believe David Payne has been involved in ,,,,,,,,. and has been before May 2007.

As for men having hands on experience with children,yes you are probably right ,if its your own child, but to go and bathe somebody elses child, this does not happen Panda do you agree yes/no.

Panda remember also the letter written by Yvonne Warren Martin regarding her concerns about David Payne, her concerns were so serious she asked British police to investigate child abuse registers for anything regarding David Payne.

These are more than coincidence,, David Payne has some serious questions to answer. thats if David Payne is his real name.

[quote="Wallflower"]

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

Says a lot about you too, sans...

Dr Gaspars statement is hardly vague. In fact it is a long way from it and pretty precise in many details.

As for it being hysterical, I'd be interested to know what part of the statement you gleaned 'hysterical' from and why.

(Or did you mean she was hysterical when she made the statement).

As well you know, sans, the fact that her husband did not concur means absolutely nothing and does not detract in any way from what she said she saw and heard Messrs Payne and McCann discussing.

And finally, unless you were there and witnessed Dr Gasper make her statement, you really shouldn't cast such stupid and vindictive aspersions.

Judge

jimuck wrote:thats if David Payne is his real name.

care to expand on this?

Been seething all day about this absolute injustice and hope that when the court case happens Dr Amaral is exonerated.

The Mcs have hampered the search (well they never actually started) for their daughter and they 'lost' her in the first place, not Dr Amaral. Why don't they sue Wayne Hewlett as he had vital information in a letter from his father. He held on to that info and after 9 months went to the Sun, not the police. And he conveniently burnt the 'letter of evidence'; anyway he's not worth sue-ing as he's probably not rich enough.

Will any UK paper pick this story up - not one of the Murdoch comics, as they have to toe the party line. They can't be CRooked because they'd only be printing facts as per Portuguese news. But I won't hold my breath!

As for Sofia being vindictive, if I was her I doubt if I'd be so restrained. To know my husband had been forced to leave a job he loved and now face financial ruin would send me over the top.

Come on Karma, I'm getting impatient!

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

You are over-playing your defense of the them here. There is no logical assumption nor reason that leads to the statement by Dr Gasper as being labeled 'vague' or 'hysterical'. Given the serious nature of the statement and the potential impact, I would say it was actually quite well explained. I would not want to have to make a statement like that.

Your final comment can equally apply to your post - that your rather vague and hysterical response to Sophia says more about you, ..... or your intentions more precisely.