Amaral V McCann trial

it's me again wrote:I've not read the book, but sadly I think Madeleine is not with us anymore based on the parents in video interveiws (not press reports) and the files. Surely more people have read the files than the book.

I have not read the files but the book.

Lilemor

Good Morning to you and everyone,

Apparently there are 3 Judges, one of whom "guides" the Defence since this is a Libel Action there may not be
a Jury and I would think the PJ will be mindful of the public interest in this Trial and may not allow visitors.
nor the Press.

Lilemor wrote:Carolina in his book Amaral gave his own opinion I assume.
Don´t know the exact wording but I think it was:
"My common sense tells me that Madeleine has died..."
But it is HIS opinion and since when is a person not allowed to talk about her/his opinion???
So his opinion shouldn´t be a problem, really!

I have read the book twice in Portuguese and nowhere, as I recall, does he say "My common sense......." If you can give the name of the chapter where you found this quote (even in German), I would appreciate it. The only time he mentions his take on the case is on the last page where he says that he and the group of investigators came to the conclusions given in the report by Tavares de Almeida.

To sans-souci: The investigation died on the day GA was taken off the case as it had been already decided by the political powers to shelve it. Even though Paulo Rebelo came in to take GA's place, he and his team found no evidence of an abduction either. The ambiguous report by the PP in no way exonerates the McCanns and he also says that Maddie is most likely dead. What GA wrote in his book was the investigation as he knew it and how it was prematurely closed due to political pressure.

Good morning beattie and everyone!
3 Judges?
That is fine!
We can only hope that NO freemasons/cover up are involved.
That is all we can do.

But first, on 9th of December, Cipri is in court.

Carolina

I think the McCanns must be wondering what Defence Amaral will offer!!!! Is the Judicial system much different to the U.K ? with the shambles of the Cipriano Trial and Correio"s wild assertions being questioned
by Amaral I just wonder if Law and Order will prevail. Do you know whether the McCanns will have to attend
each hearing ?

Beattie wrote:Carolina

I think the McCanns must be wondering what Defence Amaral will offer!!!! Is the Judicial system much different to the U.K ? with the shambles of the Cipriano Trial and Correio"s wild assertions being questioned
by Amaral I just wonder if Law and Order will prevail. Do you know whether the McCanns will have to attend
each hearing ?

Personally, I believe that the McCanns were not counting on the case getting this far. They were probably convinced that the financial strangulation would work and that Gonçalo Amaral would not be able to file for his defence and appeal the injunction. Now, things do not seem to be going their way as they just might have to see the inside of a courtroom and answer questions in front of a judge. No preempted questions and answers there.

Carolina

Yes, the McCanns did not expect Amaral to Defend himself once they had frozen his assets and must know that
they will not enjoy the Celebrity status they have when they go to Portugal.!!!!!! Interesting times ahead and
I just hope it is a fair Trial and we don"t have any more interference from people in high places.

I don't know the first thing about trails.

But why do we know by now that there will be three court-days?

Do they already know how the trail will end? And the time window?

Or are the three court days only the beginning?

This may be of some help, Lilemore.

The court will have estimated the likely time required for the trial and booked the court room, officials and judges for that period. But it will be their best guess

It may be that less time will be required, in which time it would close early. Or more time will be needed, in which case more time will be tabled as soon as the judges are available to continue.

I believe there may be some confusion. This is not a trial. The judge or judges will only be listening to GA's witnesses in his appeal against the injunction forbidding him to speak or write about the Maddie case and the possibility of her death.

I don't know if he appeals before the same judge who ordered the injunction or another judge, but his is not a trial. The witnesses are scheduled to be heard on certain days.

So don't get too excited. As the Portuguese say : Calma. The fight has just begun.

sans_souci wrote:This may be of some help, Lilemore.

The court will have estimated the likely time required for the trial and booked the court room, officials and judges for that period. But it will be their best guess

It may be that less time will be required, in which time it would close early. Or more time will be needed, in which case more time will be tabled as soon as the judges are available to continue.

Thank you Sans Souci!

Nothing will come of this. The McCanns will win. They always do. Sorry to be a pessimist.

Sorry to be an optomist. But I recall a morning more than two years ago when the two panicked doctors bailed out of their Portugese villa. Most on the Mirror Forum suggested it was all over. It wasn't and it isn't until the truth is out.

MaryB wrote:Nothing will come of this. The McCanns will win. They always do. Sorry to be a pessimist.

I know how you feel, they fall in the dung heap, yet, come up smelling of roses every time. The lies that are so obvious, the changed stories by the Tapas 9, the McCanns are never questioned. If Amaral loses this, then it is obvious that people in very high places are involved in the cover up, he's written a book FGS nothing else.

In my view, there is a lack of logic. Had "people in very high places" covered this up, they did a pretty poor job of it. Given that we are all still discussing it.

Amaral wrote a book about it, which seems to have been quite a profitable exercise. Had he stuck to suportable facts he would probably not have a problem. But his views expressed in the book, and in the docudrama and interviews, leaves little doubt as to his thesis - that Madeleine died in the apartment, that she was not abducted and that her parents are involved in some criminal activity.

Neither Amaral, not the subsequent investigation by the PJ, were able to prove this thesis. In fact it is at variance with the final report of the PP and the AG.

In writing his book, giving his interviews and making the docudrama, he is in effect accusing the McCanns. There is little doubt in the reader or views mind what his theseis is, no matter how many times he says "in my opinion". And that is why he is being sued. No cover up or subterfuge.

Unless he has some actual evidence up his sleeve, he looks to be on very dodgy and expensive ground.

sans_souci wrote:In my view, there is a lack of logic. Had "people in very high places" covered this up, they did a pretty poor job of it. Given that we are all still discussing it.

Amaral wrote a book about it, which seems to have been quite a profitable exercise. Had he stuck to suportable facts he would probably not have a problem. But his views expressed in the book, and in the docudrama and interviews, leaves little doubt as to his thesis - that Madeleine died in the apartment, that she was not abducted and that her parents are involved in some criminal activity.

Neither Amaral, not the subsequent investigation by the PJ, were able to prove this thesis. In fact it is at variance with the final report of the PP and the AG.

In writing his book, giving his interviews and making the docudrama, he is in effect accusing the McCanns. There is little doubt in the reader or views mind what his theseis is, no matter how many times he says "in my opinion". And that is why he is being sued. No cover up or subterfuge.

Unless he has some actual evidence up his sleeve, he looks to be on very dodgy and expensive ground.

He never says "in my opinion" in the book: His thesis, as you call it, is always based on the investigation in which he participated and which was stopped in it's tracks when he was taken off of the case. The rest after that was for "inglês ver" and if indeed there was any evidence of an abduction it would have been uncovered under Paulo Rebelo. And you know what, nothing changed. They could find nothing to point to an abduction and that is why the case was shelved. There were too many loose ends that were never investigated because in the end they did not want to solve the crime because it would have invariably pointed towards the parents. As I have said so many times, this was the "solution" as demanded by Pinto Monteiro. In the end, the PJ and the MP were not allowed to do their job, which was to solve a crime and to give Maddie justice.

He does not have any more evidence up his sleeve, it is not necessary for him to solve the mystery in the courtroom in order to win the case. All Gonçalo Amaral needs to do is prove that what he wrote in his book is entirely based on the actual investigation and backed up by the police files and that he invented nothing. The real problem for the McCanns is that the files were made public, something that they never expected and I believe that they want these to be ultimately suppressed. Didn't Gerry say something about that during his interview with Sandra Felgueiras?

Lilemor wrote:

sans_souci wrote:This may be of some help, Lilemore.

The court will have estimated the likely time required for the trial and booked the court room, officials and judges for that period. But it will be their best guess

It may be that less time will be required, in which time it would close early. Or more time will be needed, in which case more time will be tabled as soon as the judges are available to continue.

Thank you Sans Souci!

Lilemor, there is no trial on these days. The judge or judges shall only be hearing GA's witnesses in his appeal against the injunction order. He has a certain number of witnesses and they will be heard over the period of three days. This might just take place in the judge's office, for all we know.

I do so hope what the witnesses have to say will be made public. Is this a private hearing or can the public attend?

While I have never agreed with the theory that there is a cover-up in high places in this case (WHY?), I don't share sans souci's opinion that there is no evidence Madeleine died in the flat.

And what evidence is that, Fedrules? Forensic? Have you read the reports? The dogs? Not much use without forensic corroboration. Amarals "proof" that no abduction was possible, as put forward in his documentary?

I know it is tedious, but it is quite instructive to actualy look at this "proof". I have highlighted a couple of holes in it - either taat the door was unlocked, or that the aductor used a key.

I think if he is relying on the evidence avaialble as his proof of his allegations, he has a problem. But we shall see sometime next week. maybe.

Snippet>

43.25 - Final Evidence

43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indicia prove that the apartment’s window and door were not forced.

43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?

Alexandre Simas
Expert (Former Polícia Judiciária)

43.51 – This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock’s cannon, which didn’t happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it’s not locked, it’s introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn’t jump to open the lock for me.

44.33 – If the door wasn’t opened without a key, the window doesn’t bear any traces of having been forced, either.

44.40 – These windows have a very good characteristic to check if they were forced or not. Being made of lacquered aluminium, any screwdriver, any instrument that is used to make the lock jump, immediately leaves a mark. What we can see here, there is no break-in, the mark that is there belongs to the lock itself as it rotates, sometimes one does this with the lock in place, and it hits there. So, to open this window, all we have to do is this. To close it, it’s impossible, because either one has a magnet on his fingers to pull the window…

45.18 – Another important fact is revealed by the fingerprints that are left on the bedroom window, which the McCanns insist they left closed, and is supposedly found open when the mother notices her daughter is missing. The only fingerprints that are found belong to Kate McCann, and reveal that they were made by opening the window.

45.42 – These three indicia mean that there was no abduction, and that is proved. No abductor entered apartment 5A, through the door or through the window.

There is no evidence of a break-in because the McCanns didn't bother to lock the door. The window was not forced because, in my opinion, it was opened from the inside by someone staging the abduction. The dog alerts are significant, but, possibly thanks to thorough cleaning, no reliable DNA samples were found, although 15 out of 19 markers is considered good enough in some countries.Mr Smith saw somebody who looked alarmingly like McCann carrying a 'sleeping' Madeleine through the streets on the evening of May 3rd. Of course it's not proof, but is is sufficient to make most question the truth of the abduction.

This is the trouble. Really the abduction theory is not very believable. That's the big problem certain quarters have to keep on and on addressing. And really as time goes on it is getting less and less believable. That is my opinion. And according to the Human Rights Act I am allowed one. Though not it seems the policeman orginally in charge of the investigation.

I think Amaral makes it very clear in the DVD that abduction could not have taken place. I wonder if the
McCanns can still justify their claim the Madeleine was abducted if and when the case goes to Court. In the
Cutting Edge Documentary, Kate gives a detailed description of how the Window was open, Curtains blowing
and a draught as she opened the Bedroom door. Since one of Amaral"s Witnesses will testify that the Window
wasn"t open and no prints were found except Kate"s , how will she react.?

MaryB wrote:This is the trouble. Really the abduction theory is not very believable. That's the big problem certain quarters have to keep on and on addressing. And really as time goes on it is getting less and less believable. That is my opinion. And according to the Human Rights Act I am allowed one. Though not it seems the policeman orginally in charge of the investigation.

Of course you are allowed an opinion. And so is Amaral.

People here are terribly fond of quoting article 10 of the Human Rights Act in defense of their right to hold and express an opinion.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

But a bit less keen on the second part:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 is not carte blanche to say what you like - it is restricted where the rights of others are infringed. And in this case, Amaral has, in accusing the McCanns of various acts, potentially infringed their reputation and rights. Whether he has done so will be tested in a Portuguese court shortly.

To draw an alaogy - lets say you were accused of, say, shoplifting, possibly arrested, but no evidence was found, no charges brought, end of story. But the police officer concerned decided to write an article in the local newspaper saying that you were in fact guilty and had got away with it. Would you be content that he as simply exercising his human rights under article 10.......?

Kate came across as very unconvincing as she described the door slamming shut. I wonder just how breezy it was in P. da L. that evening? There would have to have been an impressive draught to cause the billowing curtains and slamming door IMO.