Next move

I was wondering why the next part of the case has not gone ahead. This is what I understand. Mr Amaral took the McCanns to court to get the injunction on his book lifted. But he didn't win. The next thing was to be the McCanns to claim the £1m. That would mean them taking him to court. Have they not done that yet. And could the situation just be left as it is. With the book being banned permanently.

MaryB wrote:And could the situation just be left as it is. With the book being banned permanently.

yes it could. it could now be a case of weighing up the pros and cons but the asset freezing business does suggest that they may be looking for closure perhaps in the shape of an out of court settlement. suits both parties that.

MaryB wrote:I was wondering why the next part of the case has not gone ahead. This is what I understand. Mr Amaral took the McCanns to court to get the injunction on his book lifted. But he didn't win. The next thing was to be the McCanns to claim the £1m. That would mean them taking him to court. Have they not done that yet. And could the situation just be left as it is. With the book being banned permanently.

The four defendents in the injunction hearing appealed the decision taken in February 2010 and therefore, is not over. As for the libel case, no news yet as to when that will see the inside of a courthouse.

Marky wrote:

MaryB wrote:And could the situation just be left as it is. With the book being banned permanently.

yes it could. it could now be a case of weighing up the pros and cons but the asset freezing business does suggest that they may be looking for closure perhaps in the shape of an out of court settlement. suits both parties that.

An out of court settlement does not suit Gonçalo Amaral in any way and the only ones who would benefit from this settlement would be the McCanns because they want to avoid a trial, which would mean that a lot of information would then become available for the general public.

Well I don't know the situation with Mr Amaral. But I hope he doesn't go for an out of court settlement. And holds out if he can. It does look as if it's a bit of a stand off at the moment. But if the McCanns won, he would pay the money, and the book would still remained banned. But maybe the settlement in court would be only a small amount. I can't see any advantage of settling out of court. Except his assets would be unfrozen presumably. But wouldn't the court have to unfreeze his assets. Glad I'm not a lawyer. It's all too confusing!

MaryB wrote:Well I don't know the situation with Mr Amaral. But I hope he doesn't go for an out of court settlement. And holds out if he can. It does look as if it's a bit of a stand off at the moment. But if the McCanns won, he would pay the money, and the book would still remained banned. But maybe the settlement in court would be only a small amount. I can't see any advantage of settling out of court. Except his assets would be unfrozen presumably. But wouldn't the court have to unfreeze his assets. Glad I'm not a lawyer. It's all too confusing!

Mr. Amaral has stated that he will take this case as far as the European Court of Human Rights if need be. Therefore, even if the verdict was in favour of the McCanns, he would appeal to the higher courts, so it does not stop at the next step.

Carolina wrote:

Marky wrote:

MaryB wrote:And could the situation just be left as it is. With the book being banned permanently.

yes it could. it could now be a case of weighing up the pros and cons but the asset freezing business does suggest that they may be looking for closure perhaps in the shape of an out of court settlement. suits both parties that.

An out of court settlement does not suit Gonçalo Amaral in any way and the only ones who would benefit from this settlement would be the McCanns because they want to avoid a trial, which would mean that a lot of information would then become available for the general public.

oh, any sort of settlement either in or out of court wouldn't suit him but if forced to make a choice...

The reason why Dr. Amaral wrote his book was to attempt to take the case forward at least through the civil courts. His express aim is to get the McCanns into a courtroom and cross-examined under oath. There can be absolutely no question of Dr. Amaral settling out of court. What we have at the moment appears to be a standoff with the McCann side (with what appears to be assistance from the Portuguese judiciary) attempting everything they can to intimidate Dr. Amaral and force him to settle out of court, because of course the last thing the McCanns want is to have the absurd abduction story questioned under oath. If the Portuguese do not make a move soon to have the case heard, I would imagine that Dr. Amaral and his co-defendants will take this directly to the Court of Human Rights, since the injunction has been in place for an inordinate length of time, his basic human rights are being violated and the financial damage incurred is horrendous.

T4two wrote:The reason why Dr. Amaral wrote his book was to attempt to take the case forward at least through the civil courts. His express aim is to get the McCanns into a courtroom and cross-examined under oath. There can be absolutely no question of Dr. Amaral settling out of court. What we have at the moment appears to be a standoff with the McCann side (with what appears to be assistance from the Portuguese judiciary) attempting everything they can to intimidate Dr. Amaral and force him to settle out of court, because of course the last thing the McCanns want is to have the absurd abduction story questioned under oath. If the Portuguese do not make a move soon to have the case heard, I would imagine that Dr. Amaral and his co-defendants will take this directly to the Court of Human Rights, since the injunction has been in place for an inordinate length of time, his basic human rights are being violated and the financial damage incurred is horrendous.

Given that he will be one of the defendants in a libel trial, he may be in for an expensive disappointment then.

What I find puzzling is this. In the last court case Mr Amaral called a witness, a policeman, but this policeman wasn't allowed to give evidence because of secrecy. Now for libel to be proved, it would have to be proved Mr Amaral was telling lies and that is why the case for libel was brought. Now if a person was prevented from giving evidence which could prove or disprove he was telling lies can that be a fair trial. I for one can't see how it can be.

MaryB wrote:What I find puzzling is this. In the last court case Mr Amaral called a witness, a policeman, but this policeman wasn't allowed to give evidence because of secrecy. Now for libel to be proved, it would have to be proved Mr Amaral was telling lies and that is why the case for libel was brought. Now if a person was prevented from giving evidence which could prove or disprove he was telling lies can that be a fair trial. I for one can't see how it can be.

I'm confused too!