INTERVIEW WITH AMARAL

Panda wrote:Hi Colonel Fabien,

The McCanns have English Lawyers and Portugese Lawyers so surely they would have been properly
advised on the props and cons of suing Amaral? We know Gerry is arrogant but he is not stupid, this is the guy who raised over £3 million in donations, plus T.V. interviews etc and succeeded with PR help in getting half
the World to search for Madeleine. Maybe he listened to Isobel Duarte who seemed to behave without decorum
judging by the minute by minute transcript we received.

I thought at the time he was putting his head in the Lions mouth having to go to Court in Portugal where he
and Kate have behaved disgracefully towards the people of Portugal who as taxpayers have Funded all the Police
work which must have run into Millions of Euros.

Just seen your post, maybe the Daily Express coughing up £600,000 without going to Court made Gerry think it
would be a walkover suing Amaral. To prove they suffered Health problems they would have to produce Certificates wouldn"t they?

Lawyers do what their clients want them to do and often they have to go against their better judgement because of their clients' demands. After all, the clients are the ones who are paying. I don't think that Gerry is the type of person who will take advice from a mere lawyer, after all he is Gerry McCann, who knows better than anyone else of the face of the earth. Remember how he interrupted Adam Tudor at the parliamentary hearing. Sometimes lawyers, even the best ones, try their best to win a difficult case and they lose because they are short of arguments. Just because the McCanns have an army of lawyers does not mean that they have a strong case.

Panda wrote:

What about the claim that Amaral"s theory has hindered their search for their Daughter, damaged their health
and the twins (they even included Madeleine before someone reminded them she is still a Ward of Court and they are no longer her Guardians!!)

The problem with their argument is: what has hurt them more? Surely a book saying Maddie's dead isn't as hurtful as being her parents and living without her? people can make any sort of assumption they want, especially a policeman with 26 years experience.... No the problem is Amaral has sussed them and they're much too arrogant to ignore it.

They've made some mistakes but suing Amaral was the biggest own goal since claiming the shutters were jemmied.

margaret wrote:

Panda wrote:

What about the claim that Amaral"s theory has hindered their search for their Daughter, damaged their health
and the twins (they even included Madeleine before someone reminded them she is still a Ward of Court and they are no longer her Guardians!!)

The problem with their argument is: what has hurt them more? Surely a book saying Maddie's dead isn't as hurtful as being her parents and living without her? people can make any sort of assumption they want, especially a policeman with 26 years experience.... No the problem is Amaral has sussed them and they're much too arrogant to ignore it.

They've made some mistakes but suing Amaral was the biggest own goal since claiming the shutters were jemmied.

And the problem they have now is that the Court actually stated that the content of the book is the same as the files. Of course we, thinking people, who had studied both always knew that.

Panda wrote:I think before we get too carried away with this, the lifting of the injunction merely gives Amaral the right
to freedom of Speech. The Trial will determine whether his remarks are libellous and damage the McCanns
reputation. No one can say whether Madeleine is alive or dead and this will be the crux of the Trial. The verdict
could go either way.

No they cannot say. But they can have an opinion. Such as the McCanns have their opinion that Madeleine is unharmed and Mr Amaral has his opinion. that is fair enough I think.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:Carolina,

What about the claim that Amaral"s theory has hindered their search for their Daughter, damaged their health
and the twins (they even included Madeleine before someone reminded them she is still a Ward of Court and they are no longer her Guardians!!) I know nothing of Portugese Law but these claims must be taken into account, even though WE don"t think they are valid, judgement must be made on these issues and did Amaral
exceed his right to freedom of speech by publishing his thoughts? there were I remember four possibilities the
PJ Final Report listed.

In the UK, and I should think, elsewhere in Europe, when someone claims that their health has been damaged, medical records must be presented. When a relative of mine made a claim against a Health authority, her medical records from after and before the incident had to be produced, to prove that damage had resulted from the incident and that her health problems did not predate the incident. I would expect the Portuguese court to request these medical records from the McCanns so that if they were claiming depression, say, and the medical records showed that their treatment for depression predated Maddie's disappearance or the publication of the book, they would have no claim for damage to health. If treatment for depression followed Maddie's disappearance and predated the publication of the book, that could be taken as a natural response to the event and not resulting from publication.

I don't think the McCanns would be able to claim damage to their health if no medical records were available.

I think this is interesting and I believe we have discussed this health issue on a previous thread. But I did want to ask you, if you can remember, if we ever found out why they made Madeleine a Ward of Court. Do you think it was because they had left the children alone and she disappeared so Social Services made them do this because they felt suspicious about their fitness to look after their children. They did have to have advice about this when returning home, I remember reading something about a statement they gave - the McCanns. This could be why they have files on the Child Protection Agency. Also if Kate has been prescribing sedatives to the children, which we believe she was then, she would have done the same for herself even before going to Portugal, so there wouldn't be any records. Shot herself in her foot slightly, don't you think. Maybe that's why no records of Madeleine were given to the PJ.

Angelique

Carolina wrote:Lawyers do what their clients want them to do and often they have to go against their better judgement because of their clients' demands. After all, the clients are the ones who are paying. I don't think that Gerry is the type of person who will take advice from a mere lawyer, after all he is Gerry McCann, who knows better than anyone else of the face of the earth. Remember how he interrupted Adam Tudor at the parliamentary hearing. Sometimes lawyers, even the best ones, try their best to win a difficult case and they lose because they are short of arguments. Just because the McCanns have an army of lawyers does not mean that they have a strong case.

Oh, I'm sure Kate and Gerry think they know it all much better than any lawyer! I always wondered whose bright idea it was to send a letter to Tony Bennett telling him that to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as a 'mystery' was an 'actionable libel'. That must have been one of the most stupid things ever said in the many stupid claims in this case, particularly as just shortly afterwards Clarence Mitchell in a Channel 4 interview said Madeleine's disappearance 'remains a complete mystery'.

So, the fragrant duo (or gruesome twosome, take your pick) think it's all right for Clarence Mitchell to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as a complete mystery, but an actionable libel when Tony Bennett says it?

PS I read that whole C4 interview and unbelievably Clarence Mitchell says no less than 3 times that there's no evidence that Madeleine's been harmed at all -

'That is absolutely wrong - there is no evidence at all to suggest that she’s been harmed, let alone killed, and every reason for the search to continue.'
'there were two broad areas: (1) there is no evidence at all to suggest she’s been harmed and (2) no police force anywhere is actively looking for her.'
'Kate and Gerry have always drawn strength from the fact that there is no evidence to suggest she’s been harmed, in any way, whatsoever.'

Couldn't someone contact Clarence and tell him that abduction, if and when it happens, is ALWAYS harmful to children and that it's wrong to give the impression this isn't so?

Within days of Madeleine being abducted, a QC advised the McCanns to make Madeleine a Ward of Court
so that in the event of them dying suddenly, say in a plane crash, the search for Madeleine would continue.
I wondered at the time why none of the McCann or Healy Families were chosen to be her Guardians. It also amazes be that the Company was operating on 15th May, the website was set up, paypal account, Merchandise
Secretarial Services etc..........all this on the basis that Madeleine was "Abducted" and could have been found
within days or the Abductor make a ransom demand.

Panda wrote:Within days of Madeleine being abducted, a QC advised the McCanns to make Madeleine a Ward of Court
so that in the event of them dying suddenly, say in a plane crash, the search for Madeleine would continue.
I wondered at the time why none of the McCann or Healy Families were chosen to be her Guardians. It also amazes be that the Company was operating on 15th May, the website was set up, paypal account, Merchandise
Secretarial Services etc..........all this on the basis that Madeleine was "Abducted" and could have been found
within days or the Abductor make a ransom demand.

Curious that. You would expect that parents would ensure that in the event of anything happening to them that their children would be cared for by members of the family. You read about it all the time, parents dying and their own siblings taking care of the children. Could there have been a good reason why this couldn't have happened here? After all, there are plenty of people capable of looking after them.

Anyway, it would be very strange to produce medical records showing that , before Maddie's disparition the McCanns were in good health, and after depressed, only to prove that Amaral was the origine of their suffering, because, when a child disappears in such dramatic circumstances, it's perfectly normal to be in a very bad shape!

And to prove that Amaral's book increased their suffering, it would be necessary to prove in the first place how deep there were distressed. Interesting scale to establish. Where will the photos of the mass, at the Maddie"s birthday, be placed? And the make up, and the highlighted hair, and the travels around the world, jogging, races, interviews? When you are really suffering and in a deep distress, it's physically imposssible to fullfill all these activities.

Keela wrote:

Panda wrote:Within days of Madeleine being abducted, a QC advised the McCanns to make Madeleine a Ward of Court
so that in the event of them dying suddenly, say in a plane crash, the search for Madeleine would continue.
I wondered at the time why none of the McCann or Healy Families were chosen to be her Guardians. It also amazes be that the Company was operating on 15th May, the website was set up, paypal account, Merchandise
Secretarial Services etc..........all this on the basis that Madeleine was "Abducted" and could have been found
within days or the Abductor make a ransom demand.

Curious that. You would expect that parents would ensure that in the event of anything happening to them that their children would be cared for by members of the family. You read about it all the time, parents dying and their own siblings taking care of the children. Could there have been a good reason why this couldn't have happened here? After all, there are plenty of people capable of looking after them.

Keela,

The only reason I can think of is that the High Court, as Madeleine"s Guardian would have more clout with the
LP and PJ and more money to pay for an ongoing search than Family Members.

Panda wrote:

Keela wrote:

Panda wrote:Within days of Madeleine being abducted, a QC advised the McCanns to make Madeleine a Ward of Court
so that in the event of them dying suddenly, say in a plane crash, the search for Madeleine would continue.
I wondered at the time why none of the McCann or Healy Families were chosen to be her Guardians. It also amazes be that the Company was operating on 15th May, the website was set up, paypal account, Merchandise
Secretarial Services etc..........all this on the basis that Madeleine was "Abducted" and could have been found
within days or the Abductor make a ransom demand.

Curious that. You would expect that parents would ensure that in the event of anything happening to them that their children would be cared for by members of the family. You read about it all the time, parents dying and their own siblings taking care of the children. Could there have been a good reason why this couldn't have happened here? After all, there are plenty of people capable of looking after them.

Keela,

The only reason I can think of is that the High Court, as Madeleine"s Guardian would have more clout with the
LP and PJ and more money to pay for an ongoing search than Family Members.

Panda.

Really they shouldn't "need" any money for a search. If the PJ thought that there was a chance of finding her they would still be searching, albeit in a smaller scale. I can't help but think that none of the family wanted to care for her but why is the question. she looked a lovely little girl. I am not particularly maternal but I would have had her in a heartbeat!

frencheuropean wrote:Anyway, it would be very strange to produce medical records showing that , before Maddie's disparition the McCanns were in good health, and after depressed, only to prove that Amaral was the origine of their suffering, because, when a child disappears in such dramatic circumstances, it's perfectly normal to be in a very bad shape!

And to prove that Amaral's book increased their suffering, it would be necessary to prove in the first place how deep there were distressed. Interesting scale to establish. Where will the photos of the mass, at the Maddie"s birthday, be placed? And the make up, and the highlighted hair, and the travels around the world, jogging, races, interviews? When you are really suffering and in a deep distress, it's physically imposssible to fullfill all these activities.

Hi frenchperson,
I agree with your comments and mentioned earlier why their army of Lawyers did not advise them , as Carolina pointed out the person who pays the Lawyer dictates the charges. We know Gerry is arrogant and probably
thought it would be a pushover taking Amaral to Court, but I also think he was goaded on by Smethurst, the
Fund Lawyer who is more experienced in Corporate Law.
If we mere mortals can see the stupidity of making these claims what must their Families and Friends be thinking? I was looking at the videos in goodqualitywristbands blog which Annabel posted and Kate looks as if she is just not with it, probably didn"t expect the Press reaction.

frencheuropean wrote:Anyway, it would be very strange to produce medical records showing that , before Maddie's disparition the McCanns were in good health, and after depressed, only to prove that Amaral was the origine of their suffering, because, when a child disappears in such dramatic circumstances, it's perfectly normal to be in a very bad shape!

And to prove that Amaral's book increased their suffering, it would be necessary to prove in the first place how deep there were distressed. Interesting scale to establish. Where will the photos of the mass, at the Maddie"s birthday, be placed? And the make up, and the highlighted hair, and the travels around the world, jogging, races, interviews? When you are really suffering and in a deep distress, it's physically imposssible to fullfill all these activities.

They were, "non-functioning," for the first 48 hours!

Dimsie wrote:

Carolina wrote:Lawyers do what their clients want them to do and often they have to go against their better judgement because of their clients' demands. After all, the clients are the ones who are paying. I don't think that Gerry is the type of person who will take advice from a mere lawyer, after all he is Gerry McCann, who knows better than anyone else of the face of the earth. Remember how he interrupted Adam Tudor at the parliamentary hearing. Sometimes lawyers, even the best ones, try their best to win a difficult case and they lose because they are short of arguments. Just because the McCanns have an army of lawyers does not mean that they have a strong case.

Oh, I'm sure Kate and Gerry think they know it all much better than any lawyer! I always wondered whose bright idea it was to send a letter to Tony Bennett telling him that to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as a 'mystery' was an 'actionable libel'. That must have been one of the most stupid things ever said in the many stupid claims in this case, particularly as just shortly afterwards Clarence Mitchell in a Channel 4 interview said Madeleine's disappearance 'remains a complete mystery'.

So, the fragrant duo (or gruesome twosome, take your pick) think it's all right for Clarence Mitchell to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as a complete mystery, but an actionable libel when Tony Bennett says it?

PS I read that whole C4 interview and unbelievably Clarence Mitchell says no less than 3 times that there's no evidence that Madeleine's been harmed at all -

'That is absolutely wrong - there is no evidence at all to suggest that she’s been harmed, let alone killed, and every reason for the search to continue.'
'there were two broad areas: (1) there is no evidence at all to suggest she’s been harmed and (2) no police force anywhere is actively looking for her.'
'Kate and Gerry have always drawn strength from the fact that there is no evidence to suggest she’s been harmed, in any way, whatsoever.'

Couldn't someone contact Clarence and tell him that abduction, if and when it happens, is ALWAYS harmful to children and that it's wrong to give the impression this isn't so?

I refuse to believe that some of those letters have, in fact, been written by anyone with legal training. Your example is a good one. That must have been written by the errand boy or by the young son or daughter of any of the employees because anyone with legal training (or any kind of superior education, really) would not write that.

I thought there was quite a strong relationship with Sandy? and her Husband and the McCanns. Madeleine
looks adorable as you say but gave Kate a hard time. This is quite normal with the eldest child when another
child, or in this case twins, come along.My eldest Son was 3 when his Brother was born and immediately showed jealousy towards him and became more demanding of my attention. I sought advice and was advised to let the elder boy stay up half an hour later so he had "special" time ........as you know Madeleine went to bed the same time as the twins.

I think Colonel Fabien has it right. The McCanns are not very bright. It does matter because, as he points out, Gerry 'doesn't know when to stop'. I have written before that they seem to have no 'hinterland', as Denis Healey calls it. Gerry boneheadedly goes on and on insistently... forward... forward... attack...attack... and can't see what is to the right or left of him, or what impression he must be creating in any average Joe or Josephine who cares to look into this case any distance.

I do not wish or feel able to comment on their possibly aberrant or sinister psychology, but over and over again you find in the UK that people confuse passing exams (often a matter of mere solid application and rote memory) with the cleverness that means insight, ability to solve problems and all the other useful things intelligence brings with it. (NB It doesn't bring moral sense or empathy, both necessary IMHO in the practice of medicine!). Add to that the fact that both McCanns would have been driven, extremely ambitious, and likely pushed to their limit by family friends and school to do well... in exams. You do not have to be blindingly clever to become a doctor.

Gerry I think was the youngest child of the family... possibly spoiled and given the badge of being clever by his siblings, who may or may not have been cleverer than he, and may or may not have had as many advantages. Kate I think was an only child. Being 'a doctor' is the ultimate pinnacle of success to the not particularly privileged or well off. Moreover, if you ask a child in any under-developed country what he or she would like to be when he grows up... guess what the most common answer is! There is absolutely nothing wrong with this ambition, but in the McCann's case they both give the appearance of having used up every little bit of gumption they ever had in the struggle to achieve their professional goal, and they seem to believe that merely by working as medics they deserve respect and a superior status. If they don't get it (because they don't merit it) they put it down to snobbery in their detractors.

Gerry I think was the youngest child of the family... possibly spoiled and given the badge of being clever by his siblings, who may or may not have been cleverer than he

Well after seeing the delectable Philomena, there can't be much doubt that he is cleverer than she is. What was her famous quote? Oh yes. "What dogs can talk now"? She comes across as extremely inarticulate, when considering her role as a school teacher is very worrying.

fred wrote:

Gerry I think was the youngest child of the family... possibly spoiled and given the badge of being clever by his siblings, who may or may not have been cleverer than he

Well after seeing the delectable Philomena, there can't be much doubt that he is cleverer than she is. What was her famous quote? Oh yes. "What dogs can talk now"? She comes across as extremely inarticulate, when considering her role as a school teacher is very worrying.

When referring to the reward money, Philomena said it would only take one "unscrupulous," person to come forward and claim it. That's what she thought of anyone who might know of her niece's whereabouts and tell the police!

A well thought out post Comperdna

I agree with what you say but would just mention this. Only a few weeks after Madeleine was missing I was travelling on a Coach with a Woman Cardiac Consultant who had met Gerry at various Seminars and thought he was a very nice person, helpful, and she was horrified when I suggested there was no evidence Madeleine had been abducted and that the McCanns were not as innocent as they seemed. Said there was no way the Parents were implicated in their daughters disappearance.

My Son who is very bright and could have gone to University claimed , as you say, that there is nothing special about being a University Graduate, and that knowledge is just having a retentative memory.

Marky wrote:

Panda wrote:Interesting that he is thinking of translating the Book into English.

getting a publisher in the uk and circumnavigating our libel laws will be a challenge.

You dont need a UK publisher to print a book in English.

Panda... I was really interested to hear of your conversation with the woman on the coach. Just goes to show how we each only have our own individual tranch of information about a person, even if we think we know them quite well face to face. In the case of me, I have never met either McCann, but have merely been carefully observing and reading about this case from day 1... Make that day 2... and all my thoughts and opinions are formed at second hand.

BTW your son is spot on in his views about intelligence/gumption etc not necessarily being linked to qualifications, jobs, and particularly not to university attendance or even Phd/D. Phil acquisition. Har har... especially not the latter.... Shan't give my credentials to say this for a fact. I dislike people who pull the 'my views are worth more than other people's on this' bit... Just betta b'lieve me... :-D

Amaral does not need to prove that Madeleine is dead in order to win the case against the McCanns, nor do the McCanns need to prove that Madeleine is alive in order to win. Amaral only needs to prove that his opinion was based on the underlying facts of the case. Because the facts upon which he bases his opinion are entirely true and directly from the police files, the libel claim has no grounds. Courts usually follow a "reasonable man" theory, that is would a reasonable person come to the same conclusion based on all evidence presented? Obviously, the answer is yes.

IMO, Amaral was very careful in writing his book. He sought legal advice before printing and knew that it contained nothing libelous. Had he suggested murder, now that would be a different story. The conclusion of accidental death with a staged abduction is entirely plausible given the facts of the case, thus any opinion to this nature that is expressed cannot be considered libelous.

comperedna wrote:Panda... I was really interested to hear of your conversation with the woman on the coach. Just goes to show how we each only have our own individual tranch of information about a person, even if we think we know them quite well face to face. In the case of me, I have never met either McCann, but have merely been carefully observing and reading about this case from day 1... Make that day 2... and all my thoughts and opinions are formed at second hand.

BTW your son is spot on in his views about intelligence/gumption etc not necessarily being linked to qualifications, jobs, and particularly not to university attendance or even Phd/D. Phil acquisition. Har har... especially not the latter.... Shan't give my credentials to say this for a fact. I dislike people who pull the 'my views are worth more than other people's on this' bit... Just betta b'lieve me... :-D

I don"t know about you, but some of my Friends are just not interested in the McCann case , others just cannot conceive that the Parents would be involved in hiding a body , then others say, "well. that"s interesting, I never
knew that" then I get "well why are you so interested , you don"t know the couple so how can you say what they are like". I now keep my opinions on this Forum.

I know you are going to think how do I meet these people, but here is another side of the coin. Again I was
travelling on a Coach to the Airport and got chatting to another Woman who lived in Faro. The conversation turned to the McCanns and she told me that a Friend of hers was also a Friend of Mrs Fenn who said the McCanns used to go out earlier than 8.30pm and drink in the Tapas Bar. Apparently no-one in Portugal
believes Madeleine is alive and her body was thrown from nearby Cliffs into the Sea, weighted down.

I would like to think we will have endgame, but doubt it and when I think of how Madeleine has become a cash cow for everyone I get mad.

jinvta wrote:Amaral does not need to prove that Madeleine is dead in order to win the case against the McCanns, nor do the McCanns need to prove that Madeleine is alive in order to win. Amaral only needs to prove that his opinion was based on the underlying facts of the case. Because the facts upon which he bases his opinion are entirely true and directly from the police files, the libel claim has no grounds. Courts usually follow a "reasonable man" theory, that is would a reasonable person come to the same conclusion based on all evidence presented? Obviously, the answer is yes.

IMO, Amaral was very careful in writing his book. He sought legal advice before printing and knew that it contained nothing libelous. Had he suggested murder, now that would be a different story. The conclusion of accidental death with a staged abduction is entirely plausible given the facts of the case, thus any opinion to this nature that is expressed cannot be considered libelous.

Brilliant , nice and simple and explains exactly how it is.

But the only thing in Amarals book that the MaCanns could call a lie or libelous comment, is the accidental death senario.

jimuck wrote:

jinvta wrote:Amaral does not need to prove that Madeleine is dead in order to win the case against the McCanns, nor do the McCanns need to prove that Madeleine is alive in order to win. Amaral only needs to prove that his opinion was based on the underlying facts of the case. Because the facts upon which he bases his opinion are entirely true and directly from the police files, the libel claim has no grounds. Courts usually follow a "reasonable man" theory, that is would a reasonable person come to the same conclusion based on all evidence presented? Obviously, the answer is yes.

IMO, Amaral was very careful in writing his book. He sought legal advice before printing and knew that it contained nothing libelous. Had he suggested murder, now that would be a different story. The conclusion of accidental death with a staged abduction is entirely plausible given the facts of the case, thus any opinion to this nature that is expressed cannot be considered libelous.

Brilliant , nice and simple and explains exactly how it is.

But the only thing in Amarals book that the MaCanns could call a lie or libelous comment, is the accidental death senario.

Even the accidental death scenario cannot be considered a lie or libellous because it was the conclusion of the investigation as stated in the report by Tavares de Almeida. Also, I think that it is very significant that the judges considered that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to a different opinion to that of the judge in the final report when the case was shelved.