Lisbon Libel Trial McCanns v Amaral

kitti wrote:Duarte is accusing mr amaral off selling the books AFTER the ban and is demanding to see receipts.

I'm sure the book was only banned in Portugal as a Portuguese court ruling could not affect other EU countries, who would surely have to issue their own banning order? So, books were still being sold in other EU countries.

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Duarte is accusing mr amaral off selling the books AFTER the ban and is demanding to see receipts.

I'm sure the book was only banned in Portugal as a Portuguese court ruling could not affect other EU countries, who would surely have to issue their own banning order? So, books were still being sold in other EU countries.

Silly mare. Goncalo Amaral does not sell books, he is not a bookseller but a policeman. If anything it would be his publisher, G&P, who sold books. Duarte is coming across more and more as a money-grubbing shyster who's a sardine short of a can into the bargain. Maybe she's caught it off her dodgy clients.

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Duarte is accusing mr amaral off selling the books AFTER the ban and is demanding to see receipts.

I'm sure the book was only banned in Portugal as a Portuguese court ruling could not affect other EU countries, who would surely have to issue their own banning order? So, books were still being sold in other EU countries.

Silly mare.  Goncalo Amaral does not sell books, he is not a bookseller but a policeman.  If anything it would be his publisher, G&P, who sold books.  Duarte is coming across more and more as a money-grubbing shyster who's a sardine short of a can into the bargain.  Maybe she's caught it off her dodgy clients.

Well assessed and described Iris.   
Although I thought 'dodgy clients' was a tad unfair on dodgy clients, comparing them to child neglecters.

Amaral would presumably get the Royalties and this is what Kate is getting at. This is all to do with Tony Bennett renaging on the agreement not to sell his book. It was the Judge who dictated the Fine, not the McCanns and It could have been a lot bigger.
Why did the Judge not question the fact that the Book was not Amaral's to sell and the Royalties would not amount to much. When the McCanns won the injunction and Duarte, arms flailing stole the show it was said the Judge was only 23 and didn't have the experience to deal with such a high profile case. We all thought this Judge was on the case , I'm not so sure now. Again Duarte commands and the Judge obeys without a murmur. why did she not ask why Amaral's witnesses did not attend.?

I did not read it like that at all.  I read it as being Amaral's side didn't need to call these witnesses anymore, for whatever reason, and the Judge said okay. As to Duarte, she's hedging her bets and trying to establish how much money will be available in the (imho unlikely) event that she actually wins.

Iris wrote:I did not read it like that at all.  I read it as being Amaral's side didn't need to call these witnesses anymore, for whatever reason, and the Judge said okay.  As to Duarte, she's hedging her bets and trying to establish how much money will be available in the (imho unlikely) event that she actually wins.

Hi Iris, I read it like the mccanns are dictating all the time, they want to be "assistentes"...O.K.even though it delays the trial. They want records of sale from the 3 Parties....O.K. we will have it in one week even though TV1 Amaral and the Publisher have to go back almost 3 years . No retaliation from Amaral or the Publisher that Duarte held on to the books for months until a Court order made her return them . Amaral's Lawyer should have pounced on this because those Book could have been sold . In the U.K. the Judge sets the fine , the McCanns sequestered E1.2 million Euros which again is unusual in my opinion.
Amaral is not stupid so he would have chosen his Witnesses carefully , somethings wrong Iris , I don't buy that he didn't need them ...why didn't his Lawyer step in and tell the judge about the books sequestered?

Because none of it is relevant to this trial.
The "assistentes" status is a totally separate matter. The physical books themselves are not even that important. The McCanns have to prove that the book harmed their reputations and the search. They can't. All their "witness evidence" is opinion and hearsay, and the judge will have to disregard it.
I'm sure Claudia will be along soon, she knows much more about Pt law than I do, but she'll probably tell you the same.

Iris wrote:Because none of it is relevant to this trial.
The "assistentes" status is a totally separate matter.  The physical books themselves are not even that important.  The McCanns have to prove that the book harmed their reputations and the search.  They can't.  All their "witness evidence" is opinion and hearsay, and the judge will have to disregard it.
I'm sure Claudia will be along soon, she knows much more about Pt law than I do, but she'll probably tell you the same.

 
I'm with you Iris. I agree, that it appears that Amaral no longer needed to call certain witnesses. Perhaps some witnesses were to be included only if the McCanns had called certain witnesses, some of whom ended up not testifying. I think the McCanns had some people on their witness list just to try to intimidate Amaral and force him to settle. That tactic didn't work and the witnesses backed out, as they were not needed. Maybe Amaral had some witnesses to counter whatever the McCann witnesses said, but when they did not testify, the Amaral witnesses were not needed.
 
Can't read too much into it. I don't think any of this looks bad for Amaral at all. In fact, I am thinking quite the opposite.

Iris wrote:Because none of it is relevant to this trial.
The "assistentes" status is a totally separate matter.  The physical books themselves are not even that important.  The McCanns have to prove that the book harmed their reputations and the search.  They can't.  All their "witness evidence" is opinion and hearsay, and the judge will have to disregard it.
I'm sure Claudia will be along soon, she knows much more about Pt law than I do, but she'll probably tell you the same.

 
I know Iris, that's not my argument . If Duarte sequestered I think over 1 thousand Books that was income denied to the Publisher and Possible Royalties to Amaral and it was only because a Judge ordered their return that Duarte had to comply.  The Publishing Company would not risk printing any more so this should have been the time Amaral's Lawyer objected so it is on record. The McCanns claim originally was . as you say , hindering the search for Madeleine, harming the Family's Health etc, now it is turning into a witchunt trying to prove the book was still being sold after the injunction, which Amaral won so the Book should have then been on sale.

Panda wrote:

Iris wrote:I did not read it like that at all.  I read it as being Amaral's side didn't need to call these witnesses anymore, for whatever reason, and the Judge said okay.  As to Duarte, she's hedging her bets and trying to establish how much money will be available in the (imho unlikely) event that she actually wins.

Hi Iris, I read it like the mccanns are dictating all the time, they want to be "assistentes"...O.K.even though it delays the trial. They want records of sale from the 3 Parties....O.K. we will have it in one week even though TV1 Amaral and the Publisher have to go back almost 3 years . No retaliation from Amaral or the Publisher that Duarte held on to the books for months until a Court order made her return them . Amaral's Lawyer should have pounced on this because those Book could have been sold . In the U.K. the Judge sets the fine , the McCanns sequestered E1.2 million Euros which again is unusual in my opinion.
Amaral is not stupid so he would have chosen his Witnesses carefully , somethings wrong Iris , I don't buy that he didn't need them ...why didn't his Lawyer step in and tell the judge about the books sequestered?

Once again, the assistentes request has nothing to do with the libel trial.

As for giving up witnesses, it happens all the time. especially when lawyers suspect that what the witnesses have to say has already been said before by other witnesses. In fact, it has happened to me as a witness.

Panda wrote:

Iris wrote:Because none of it is relevant to this trial.
The "assistentes" status is a totally separate matter.  The physical books themselves are not even that important.  The McCanns have to prove that the book harmed their reputations and the search.  They can't.  All their "witness evidence" is opinion and hearsay, and the judge will have to disregard it.
I'm sure Claudia will be along soon, she knows much more about Pt law than I do, but she'll probably tell you the same.

 
I know Iris, that's not my argument . If Duarte sequestered I think over 1 thousand Books that was income denied to the Publisher and Possible Royalties to Amaral and it was only because a Judge ordered their return that Duarte had to comply.  The Publishing Company would not risk printing any more so this should have been the time Amaral's Lawyer objected so it is on record. The McCanns claim originally was . as you say , hindering the search for Madeleine, harming the Family's Health etc, now it is turning into a witchunt trying to prove the book was still being sold after the injunction, which Amaral won so the Book should have then been on sale.

Then that would have to be the subject of yet another trial, separate to this one, where Amaral (or more likely G&P) would be sueing the McCanns for tortuous interference of business, something like that. Technically it's a criminal offence too - contempt of court - but pretty low level, so the court's not likely to be that bothered, but they might have to be if Amaral's team make enough of a fuss about it. I personally think that Dr Amaral is too dignified to soil his hands with such a spiteful gesture, maybe his publishers will be less forgiving, it's a lot of lost income for them as well, and they are a small company who might not be able to afford it.

I think if the findmadeleine.com shop stays close for much longer we can assume the game is coming to and end....

Panda wrote:Many thanks Almostgothic.......

What a messy case this is turning out to be and I do in part blame the Judge . Amaral is not being charged with earning money, he is being charged with Hindering the search for Madeleine, harming the health of the McCann Family and insinuating that Madeleine .died in 5a.

The Judge should never have agreed with the plaintiff that a fully documented account of the monies paid to Amaral etc, yet again the Trial is suspended. Another mystery about Amaral's Witnesses and surprise that Amaral's Lawyer did not contest the question of earnings , it is not relevant. The McCanns sequestered E1 miillion so they obviously think Amaral earned much more than he stated. A bit like the pot calling the Kettle black, the McCanns have made a fortune out of Madeleine's disappearance.

I may be somewhat pedantic but Gonçalo Amaral is not being charged with anything, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. But as you say, the McCanns seem to be pursuing the man simply because he made money on his book. I suppose these requests are being permitted in order to know exactly what Gonçalo Amaral's assets are. Anyway, the other defendents, Guerra & Paz, VC and TVI are the ones who must provide the receipts and information, not GA.

kitti wrote:I think if the findmadeleine.com shop stays close for much longer we can assume the game is coming to and end....

find madeleine and shop in the same sentence... ugh. What's wrong with McCanns in one simple phrase.

Yes, the little online shop of horrors is still closed. You can still download a selection of nice posters of Madeleine aged approx. 18months in her little red dress, though.

Iris wrote:Yes, the little online shop of horrors is still closed.  You can still download a selection of nice posters of Madeleine aged approx. 18months in her little red dress, though.

iris everytime is see the little baby photo with the red dress i really could scream usually the police ask for the latest photos - imo the everton shirt one or the one where she was riding her bike would have been better - and all these pics after the baby one why the hell was this one used at all

cass wrote:

Iris wrote:Yes, the little online shop of horrors is still closed.  You can still download a selection of nice posters of Madeleine aged approx. 18months in her little red dress, though.

iris everytime is see the little baby photo with the red dress i really could scream usually the police ask for the latest photos - imo the everton shirt one or the one where she was riding her bike would have been better - and all these pics after the baby one why the hell was this one used at all

If anyone were to go out and physically search for the little girl in the red dress, they would have an impossible task. Madeleine who is missing and the baby in the red dress would not look alike to strangers. Whereas the almost four year old Madeleine, in the Everton shirt for example, would look similar to a lot of little girls. They would not want constant "sightings", too difficult to continue acting and annoying.

There is also some of Kate's vanity showing through. The red dress photo is almost professional, perfect, not a hair out of place and an endearing little elfin face. Good marketing.


Two reasons, IMO, only.

On the back of the dust jacket of Kate's bewk, 'Madeleine' there is the age progressed pic of Madeleine as she might be at 6 years old... the smiling one with the pink Alice band. Beside it, for comparison, is that ubiquitous red dress pic. Underneath it says 'Madeline January 2007, aged 3 1/2'. She certainly looks a lot younger than that in it... but there you go.

Anyone got any news from yesterday on the trial? I have searched and cannot find anything!

fuzeta wrote: I have searched and cannot find anything!

You and the 'elites' from the MET!

They've searched and cannot find anything either!

Mind you, they have only been on the case TWO years SIX months!

Has it actually started again ?

fuzeta wrote:Anyone got any news from yesterday on the trial?  I have searched and cannot find anything!

Posted with kind permission from astro

Astro: Libel Trial Reports direct from the Court House, 27 November 2013 Day 10

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/79nov13/astro_27_11_2013.htm

Thank you Pamalam  

Thanks Pamalam.