Closing arguments in Amaral libel case set for January

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/closing-arguments-in-amaral-libel-case-set-for-january/30084



Closing arguments in Amaral libel case set for January

by Brendan de Beer, in News · 05-12-2013 15:04:00

The closing arguments in the libel case against the former Portuguese police detective Gonçalo Amaral instituted by parents of Madeleine McCann have been set for 7 January by a Lisbon high court.

Image

The Lisbon Civil Court revealed that the final allegations by the legal team representing
Kate and Gerry McCann will start at 9.30am.

In this civil case, the McCanns are demanding compensation of 1.2 million euros from Amaral who was the lead investigator for the first six months into the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

In his book, ‘Maddie: The Truth of the Lie’, Amaral defended the theory that Kate and Gerry McCann could be guilty of concealing a body.

Running parallel to the libel case is an injunction by the McCanns stopping Amaral from selling his book and a DVD which was aired on Portuguese television channel TVI.

The injunction came to force in January 2010, when a Lisbon court ruled the book and video could not be circulated in Portugal.

The decision was later overturned by a Lisbon Appeal Court, but following a counter claim by the McCanns, the Supreme Justice Tribunal upheld the earlier verdict against Amaral.

Madeleine McCann has been missing since the night of 3 May 2007. The investigation into her disappearance was shelved in July 2008 due to a lack of evidence, but re-opened this year on 24 October by the Portuguese Attorney-General’s Office.

In a statement sent to The Portugal News, the Attorney-General explained: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office has determined the re-opening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a proposal by the Polícia Judiciária and due to the presentation of new elements which justify the continuation of the investigation.”

Portuguese police, while conducting a separate investigation, have also been asked to assist Scotland Yard in following up separate lines of inquiry.

The controversial book which runs over 200 pages, was released shortly after the case was closed in 2008 and also saw the former chief inspector resign permanently from the police force that year to, as he put it, unveil the “facts of the investigation”.

Speaking to The Portugal News shortly after releasing his book, Gonçalo Amaral lamented the fact that the case had been closed.

“We should have continued investigating the parents in order to either charge them or rule them out as suspects”, he said in the summer of 2008. “If I represented this couple, I would have insisted that police investigations continue. Not everything we do is to incriminate a suspect. Often a phone will be tapped in order to obtain information that will clear a suspect.”

When questioned over the probability of a lawsuit over the release of his book, he replied: “My book is based on facts. It could be a good occasion to take all the case files to court and compare what I wrote with that which is contained in the files.”

Speaking to The Portugal News in early 2009, Gerry McCann stressed “that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is no evidence to suggest that Kate and I were involved in any theories.”

Gerry McCann also insisted they would have been legally compelled to be available for a reconstruction due to their status as arguidos, even the motives of Portuguese police were questionable.

“Don’t get me wrong, we had major concerns as to why the reconstruction was being done”, arguing that “the police reconstruction was not aimed at finding Madeleine, but rather to look for inconsistencies. There were 12 or 15 people involved and it is inevitable there would be inconsistencies.”

The injunction came to force in January 2010, when a Lisbon court ruled the book and video could not be circulated in Portugal.

The decision was later overturned by a Lisbon Appeal Court, but following a counter claim by the McCanns, the Supreme Justice Tribunal upheld the earlier verdict against Amaral.

So the book was banned again? When did this happen?

I think in the report they have muddled that a bit don't you Iris?

Iris wrote:

The injunction came to force in January 2010, when a Lisbon court ruled the book and video could not be circulated in Portugal.

The decision was later overturned by a Lisbon Appeal Court, but following a counter claim by the McCanns, the Supreme Justice Tribunal upheld the earlier verdict against Amaral.

So the book was banned again?  When did this happen?

No, it hasn't been banned by SJT.
That's what the McCanns would like people to think.

They LOST the 'unbanning' book trial and had to pay all the 'costs'.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the a quo Court is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

ID HAD to return all books.

Just another example of madia 'lies'

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/05/mccann-couple-banned-book-returns-to.html

May 2012.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/goncalo-amarals-book-can-return-into.html

October 2010.

And finally on this:
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/03/by-margarida-davim-kate-and-gerry.html

18th March 2011
Supreme Court turns down McCanns' request

Kate and Gerry McCann wanted the Supreme Court of Justice to nullify a decision by the Appeals Court that allowed for the book by Gonçalo Amaral, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, to be distributed. Nonetheless, the judges have refused the request.

Former Polícia Judiciária inspector Gonçalo Amaral will again be able to sell the book about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, which was taken off shelves after an injunction that was filed by the parents of the little English girl that disappeared in Praia da Luz was accepted by a lower court.

The Supreme Court judges REFUSED the request for an “exceptional review” of the Appeals Court’s decision, which overturned the injunction that had been filed by Kate and Gerry McCann.

SO, NO BAN ON GA's BOOK!

Speaking to The Portugal News in early 2009,

Gerry McCann also insisted they would have been legally compelled to be available for a reconstruction due to their status as arguidos, even the motives of Portuguese police were questionable.

“Don’t get me wrong, we had major concerns as to why the reconstruction was being done”, arguing that “the police reconstruction was not aimed at finding Madeleine, but rather to look for inconsistencies. There were 12 or 15 people involved and it is inevitable there would be inconsistencies.”
..............................................................................

There WERE 12 or 15 people 'involved!

THAT'S a 'revelation moment' for me, lol.

I wonder what he means  by 'INVOLVED'?

Like him to explain THAT!

Bet Andy/Met would LOVE to know WHO they (the 12/15 people) WERE that WERE 'involved' around the time of a little girl's 'disappearance'!

From MCF (Thanks to Astro)

Yes, it would have been nice if Mr de Beer had got his correction right, as well. The Supreme Court did not "uphold the verdict"; it refused Ms Duarte's extraordinary request for an appeal.

Ms Duarte had to file an extraordinary request because a ruling on an injuction is not qualified to reach the Supreme court, as far as appeals go. It stops at the Appeals court.

I've sent Mr de Beer a few links, and the contact for the Supreme Court.

http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Sociedade/Int ... t_id=14466
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/notic ... l-a-amaral
http://www.sabado.pt/Special-Pages/Prin ... ticle.News

good work Annabel

The mccanns appealed the unbanning off the book in the previous case against mr amaral.



Which means the mccanns lost the appeal and the previous case which mr amaral won...was upheld.


Costs awarded to mr amaral which the mccanns asked to be set against the libel trial.

kitti wrote:The mccanns appealed the unbanning off the book in the  previous case against mr amaral.



Which means the mccanns lost the appeal and the previous case which mr amaral won...was upheld.


Costs awarded to mr  amaral which the mccanns asked to be set against the libel trial.

So a proper court has obviously not found anything libellous in GA's book, otherwise they would have banned it.

IF the mccanns have applied to have their previous losses/costs against the libel trial then where does that leave them if they lose, AGAIN?

Current Libel trial costs + previous loss costs is going to cost them a lot, isn't it?

Thats right.....


They didn't pay the costs from the previous loss which I think is a bit off a cheek to get away with doing that.


Don't forget also, mr amaral is thinking off suing the mccanns .

kitti wrote:Thats right.....


They didn't pay the costs from the previous loss which I think is a bit off a cheek to get away with doing that.


Don't forget also, mr amaral is thinking off suing the mccanns

Where have you heard that?

He was asked in an interview would he consider suing the mccanns.


His reply was that he wouldn't be that spiteful ...but he didn't say he wouldn't when he spoke how this case has ruined his marriage and hurt his youngest daughter.

Gonçalo Amaral said to TVI today that he will sue the McCanns.

"My lawyers are working on the case and we will take the McCann couple to court and perhaps other people for defamation, slanderous denunciations and false statements," said Goncalo Amaral on Portuguese TVI television.

"We will see who has spoken the truth in this case" into the disappearance of Madeleine in the south of Portugal in May 2007, he added.


will be updated



That was 2009.....how do you think he feels 4 years later now that his youngest has been hurt?

Recently...



Asked..



Have you considered suing the McCanns for damages concerning your family?

'I have pondered about that possibility, however it is still far to early to account all the damages and make a decision. I have to think about my daughter Inês and in the effects that such situation would encompass'


You see, mr amaral puts his children first and thinks off their feelings.


The mccanns think off money ONLY.

I think Amaral SHOULD sue the McCanns and can't understand why his Lawyer did not point out when Duarte asked for the the Sales Figures , and was granted , from the Publisher before the injunction was lifted he Publisher and Amaral had to go to Court to get the Book released by Duarte , I never
understood why Amaral and the Publishers Lawyers did not mention this.

hallo panda. hope Dr. Amaral is keeping his powder dry.

keepingmum wrote:hallo panda. hope Dr. Amaral is keeping his powder dry.

Hi keepingmum, hope all is well with you and yours.  


I know I keep on about it, but to be frank I have never know a Trial like this.!!! Certainly very different to a U.K. Trial.

I kept quite a lot of stuff from 3As, This is part of one where Amaral is bemoaning the fact that Oprah Winfrey did not ask how the McCanns could leave their chlldren alone. A reply by Isabel Stillwell says "Yesterday, in the early hours of the morning I saw, on SIC the interview that Oprah did with the McCann couple. I felt that by doing that broadcast, the television was, for the first time balancing the scales. Over the past few months the media
seems to be completely conditioned by the theory that the Parents murdered their daughter and simulated an abduction, no matter how absurd that is.
Apart from a complete lack of evidence , what would lead someone who, according to this theory , committed the perfect crime."

Food for thought eh???  

Panda wrote:

keepingmum wrote:hallo panda. hope Dr. Amaral is keeping his powder dry.

Hi keepingmum, hope all is well with you and yours.  


I know I keep on about it, but to be frank I have never know a Trial like this.!!!  Certainly very different to a U.K. Trial.

I kept quite a lot of stuff from 3As, This is part of one where Amaral is bemoaning the fact that Oprah Winfrey did not ask how the McCanns could leave their chlldren alone.  A reply by Isabel Stillwell says "Yesterday, in the early hours of the morning I saw, on SIC the interview that Oprah did with the McCann couple. I felt that by doing that broadcast, the television was, for the first time balancing the scales. Over the past few months the media
seems to be completely conditioned by the theory that the Parents murdered their daughter and simulated an abduction, no matter how absurd that is.
Apart from a complete lack of evidence , what would lead someone who, according to this theory , committed the perfect crime."

Food for thought eh???  

Hi Panda,

I still have the Oprah show, and I think it put the gruesome twosome in a very bad light, particularly since nobody in the UK had ever asked them to go over their actions on that ill-fated night, and thereby exposed the absurdity of their version of events.  It wouldn't be lost on most viewers around the world that their story, when related step by step, stinks to high heaven, and (OMG) all that bum shuffling and ear scratching by Dr Gerry was most enlightening!  .

Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

Panda wrote:Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

that could be.

I know it seems ludicrous that anyone would not so much hide a body of a child who died due to negligent homicide and stage an abduction - indeed I think that is actually fairly common and you can see WHY the parent would say the child was abducted - but then go to such lengths to force the government to investigate it? That does not compute.

But then think of the other alternatives they want us to believe.

MM as target of a planned abduction through "professional pedophile ring" ? In PDL? For whom? To do what? all that effort, plotting and risk when you can buy children? For a "middle eastern" or "Saudi Arabian sheik" - again to do what? be a little housemaid? Be part of their family? Why an Arab? Because Muslims are easy to whip up sentiment against ... when children are easily gotten by the wealthy one way or another that makes no sense, regardless of the end game, maid, little blond adopted daughter, or worse.

The other alternative also supposes madness and serendipity - some "childless couple" mad enough to steal a kid and then they have been under the radar for 6 years having committed the perfect crime. Some woman who lost her own child and latches onto the idea of someone else's child as their true daughter - okayyy... just happens to be in PDL at this time and by luck this child is vulnerable.

I think the likely case if not the parents involvement  is either an opportunistic bad guy - or maybe something like your son has stated, since everyone there could have known the kids were left alone. Once the press got into it a panic response... either of those two cases the outcome for MM is very bad.

I don't think it's the perfect crime. There are clues.

Panda wrote:Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

Parents who harm their child and try to cover it up is not a far fetched crime, and happens quite often.  On the other hand, kidnapping a little girl for ransom is far rarer and infinitely more complex and dangerous to attempt.  Your son has picked the least likely theory (imho)..... but don't quote me!  

Hi widowan, we may never know what happened, look at jonbenet?? the dingobaby's cardigan was discovered years later in the outback after the parents divorced., the 3 yr old girl with her Mother and Aunt in a Supermarket in Germany disappeared without a trace. If you think about it , Redwoods' discounting of Tanners statement has given an abductor an hour, was this done to help the McCanns in the Trial ? with all the Government help the McCanns have received I wouldn't put it past him.

Panda wrote:Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

They could have just dumped her somewhere, then, like a railway station or other busy place where they could disappear into the crowd.

Iris wrote:

Panda wrote:Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

They could have just dumped her somewhere, then, like a railway station or other busy place where they could disappear into the crowd.

Wouldn't she have recognised them though Iris, I don't think they would take the chance of leaving her alive. I always remember on 3a's late one night when a Poster with a foreign name said Madeleine was buried in a drain pipe underground....it was whoosh clunked in minutes.

Panda wrote:Hi widowan, we may never know what happened, look at jonbenet?? the dingobaby's cardigan  was discovered years later  in the outback after the parents divorced., the 3 yr old girl with her Mother and Aunt  in a Supermarket in Germany disappeared without a trace. If you think about it , Redwoods' discounting of Tanners statement has given an abductor an hour, was this done to help the McCanns in the Trial ? with all the Government help the McCanns have received I wouldn't put it past him.  

Did everyone think the mother killed the baby- in the camp site, with her there with all the other people and then the screaming and carry on when she went and saw the dingo dragging it off? I didn't read about the case at that time but did see the movie and thought the police were fairly crazy but of course the movie was with benefit of hindsight.

Jon Benet Ramsey case is a horrible thing. What happened to that child under the parents' noses - with the father finding her, going right to her body after the cops had searched once - then the note being written with mother's pen on her stationery pad. If they had not found the foreign dna on the child's underwear, finally, I would never have believed the parents weren't involved. And still have a hard time believing it - but in that case, their daughter was pretty well known and had been very sexualized with all the Beauty Pageant stuff. I never liked those, not for that reason but it is another reason not to like them - Ramseys were wealthy and a kidnapping would have made sense there, for ransom. The brutal murder of that 6 year old in her own home - devastating.

Terrible things happen, in that case in a huge home with parents two floors above and after a Christmas party (ie drinking) - probably sound asleep, unless they killed her accidentally and staged it. It had to be someone who knew them or of them, the familiarity with the home would only be the case if it was someone who'd worked there or visited. But cases do go unsolved and it seems to help if you have money. I suppose foreign dna could get in underwear by the person who folded it at the factory... it was brand new so hadn't been washed since taken out of the package.

If Redwood really wanted to help Mccanns by making things up about Jane's sighting they could have hidden the evidence that it was just a tourist. Saying it was just a tourist doesn't help them in my opinion.

First - it says Jane was telling the truth, so if she DID see this guy and he was dressed as she described (and I choose to believe them that she did and he was) then that says her powers of observation are good. Therefore her statement that Gerry was on the path just outside the gate (corroborated by Jez) is more likely to be true than Gerry's bizarre waffling about how he crossed the road and faced into the fence while talking with Jez, which seems to only make sense if he's looking for a direction to be facing that allows him to NOT see Jane, or the person carrying off his child. Again - CYA mode.

if he knew something ELSe happened to MM  (not an abduction) then he knew that the person Jane saw was not carrying MM away. If they all concocted this person based on someone Jane had seen at another time he also wouldn't want to get himself into trouble by claiming he too saw him at 910.

So he would need to account for the possibility that they'd find that person and that person would have a legitimate excuse to have been there  - Gerry wouldn't want to corroborate a sighting he knew could be found to be innocent, or that he knew could be found to have been at an earlier time or walking in a different direction - let's let Jane carry the ball on that one. the fact that the tourist would have been heading the other way - from the crèche not to it- is not something Gerry might like to have his name on. It calls his credibility into question.

And if that was the abductor you don't want to be the father who stood chatting while someone carried your child away 15 yards from you while you were facing him. What would people say.

Also the timeline isn't really 9 to 10, if Gerry says he left the table at 905, went to the apt, used the loo, stood looking, etc. It's no earlier than 910- 915.  Sy also unless I misread it said the hue and cry went up at 940 or the party ended then, I believe based on witness statements of the waiter and Mrs Carpenter. So we have 30 minutes, not an hour. And with Matt's listening check smack in the middle of that, all quiet. Shutters down.

I don't think SY is there to help McCanns win the libel case. They may have been told to find holes in PJ case to sew this shut as an abduction and get McCanns, and the Murdoch machine, off Cameron's back but helping them win a libel trial seems to make SY out to be a bit more of a lackey than I can credibly believe. Finding holes in an investigation of an abduction is one thing, opening things up to let McCanns continue to make money off their child's disappearance in the face of evidence that points to them is something else entirely.