Amaral V McCann trial

[quote="sans_souci"]

MaryB wrote:This is the trouble. Really the abduction theory is not very believable. That's the big problem certain

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.......?

But the point is a three year old child is missing possibly even dead, which is an extremely grave business. And no police force is looking for her. I'd like to know why not.

fedrules wrote: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.

fedrules , Kate definitely went OTT in descibing the "break-in". Trouble is, the Docu was shown on Channel 4
and watched by millions. If Amaral"s Lawyer questions her on that, what can she say, she can"t refuse to
answer the question.

h well, that is a completely different question, and one that you would need to adress to the police force in question. Personally, I think the investigation into Madeleines disappearance should be open and active. If the PJ really thought the McCanns were guilty, but not being co-operative, then they should have interrogated them a bit more effectively. Surely they don't rely on suspects being "co-operative" to solve their crimes? (sorry guv, but, well, they wouldn't answer the questions, so, well, er, thats it. What can we do....?)

A different perspective - there is much critisism that Kate did not answer 48 questions, and that the tapas 7 did not agree to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction.

Perfectly reasonable questions have been put as to whether this has jeapodised the investigation.

To look at it from a different point of view, the McCanns were made arguidos on what has turned out to be precious little evidence. Whilst they were still arguidos the taps 7 were invited back to join in a reconstruction. I think any element of trust had gone - if your friends who you believe to be innocent are pronounced "suspects" in the case, there is clearly a risk in going back to Portugal.

Would I go back to Portugal under those circumstances - not on your life, espcially with young children. And at the time I suspect the mccanns felt the same. Would YOU have gone back?

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.......?

What is in the DVD files, evidence, I believe.

What If Gordon Brown had interfered with the Judcial process ?

What if it was apparent said hypothetical "shoplifter" had clearly lied along with his/her accomplices ?

sans_souci wrote:h well, that is a completely different question, and one that you would need to adress to the police force in question. Personally, I think the investigation into Madeleines disappearance should be open and active. If the PJ really thought the McCanns were guilty, but not being co-operative, then they should have interrogated them a bit more effectively. Surely they don't rely on suspects being "co-operative" to solve their crimes? (sorry guv, but, well, they wouldn't answer the questions, so, well, er, thats it. What can we do....?)

A different perspective - there is much critisism that Kate did not answer 48 questions, and that the tapas 7 did not agree to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction.

Perfectly reasonable questions have been put as to whether this has jeapodised the investigation.

To look at it from a different point of view, the McCanns were made arguidos on what has turned out to be precious little evidence. Whilst they were still arguidos the taps 7 were invited back to join in a reconstruction. I think any element of trust had gone - if your friends who you believe to be innocent are pronounced "suspects" in the case, there is clearly a risk in going back to Portugal.

Would I go back to Portugal under those circumstances - not on your life, espcially with young children. And at the time I suspect the mccanns felt the same. Would YOU have gone back?

It's up to the courts to decide guilt or innocence, not "friends" the "friends" can help the Courts to decide innocence or guilt by co-operating.

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.

No, Sans, I don´t think so. I see it different.

I think there was no way not to accuse Madeleines parents. How could he not accuse the McCanns?
It would have been impossible.
And who can prove it (evidence) that Dr. Amaral not only talked about his opinion?

The only way not to accuse the McCanns = no book from an investigator.

That is how I see it.

Dr. Amaral wants the case re-opened. Therefore he felt the duty to put on the table what he knows.

sans souci

The biggest mistake the Portugese Police made was not to arrange a recon while the McCanns were still
in Portugal.

The reason the Tapas 9 refused was because they knew their timelines were wrong. Apparently thney were
guaranteed "safe passage" by the Portugese Police if they returned to Portugal.

We know Jane Tanner"s statements are fanciful to say the least, but one thing really bothers me. If she was
walking up the road at about 9.10pm to check on her daughter and found she had been sick, why go all the way back to the Restaurant to ask O"Bien to take over while you finished your Dinner? Wouldn"t you, as a Mother, stay with your child until she was better and went to sleep?

Seemingly Beattie her 'motherly instinct' took second place to her devotion to team McCann's needs..........

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/mccanns-will-be-at-goncalo-amarals-book.html

The McCann couple will be present next Friday, in Lisbon, at the beginning of the trial regarding the prohibition of the sale of the book "Maddie, The Truth of The Lie".

Kate and Gerry McCann will be attending on Friday, in Lisbon, the beginning of the trial of the injunction prohibiting the sale of the book "Maddie - The Truth of The Lie", by Gonçalo Amaral, said today to News Agency Lusa a source close to the family.

On the sessions of the 11th, 14th and 16th of December, in the 7th Civil Court of Lisbon, at the Palace of Justice, the former Judiciary Police Inspector Gonçalo Amaral's defense will present the opposition to the arguments made by the McCanns which fundamented the temporary injunction proceedings decreed on the 9th of September.

Kate and Gerry McCann, represented by the attorney Isabel Duarte, argue that the book and video based on the work, divulge Gonçalo Amaral's thesis, considered by them unsustainable, for the parental involvement in Maddie's disappearance.

So they asked the court to withdraw from the market, albeit provisionally, the book and the video[DVD] produced after the documentary was broadcast by TVI.

The process, in addition to targeting the former PJ officer, is also aimed at the book publishing house "Guerra e Paz", the production company Valentim de Carvalho and TVI [Portuguese TV channel, owned by the Spanish Prisa], for the dissemination of Gonçalo Amaral's thesis; this is also attached to the main action, where the McCann family claims for protection of rights, freedoms and guarantees.

The parents of the English child, disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007 from an apartment bedroom in a tourist resort in Praia da Luz, Algarve have a another action [the main action] against Gonçalo Amaral, where they accuse him of statements deemed libellous, for which they claim 1,2 million euros.

Lawyer speaks about "offensive remarks"

According to the family's English lawyer, Ed Smethurst [on the left], Madeleine McCann parents argue that Gonçalo Amaral produced "continuously and offensive" statements in Portugal and abroad about the child's disappearance.

In the scope of the process, a preventive order to seize goods was asked, yet unmet and awaiting the completion of diligences.

Gonçalo Amaral is accused by the McCanns of having profited from "obscene amounts of money by selling that theory through his book and in interviews" and to have harmed "donations, new leads, investigation, information and witnesses" about the child's disappearance.

Suspicions fall on parents

The book "Maddie, The Truth of The Lie", the same title of the documentary aired by TVI, was published in 2008 and casts the suspicion that the parents of the English child, who was on holiday with her parents and siblings in Praia da Luz, could have participated in the concealment of the corpse.

With the status of Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimão, Gonçalo Amaral joined the team of investigators who tried to find out what happened to Madeleine.

After the constitution of Robert Murat as an arguido [defendant], Gerry and Kate McCann, who always maintained the position that Maddie was abducted, were made defendants in September 2007.

But like the Luso-British citizen, the English couple was acquitted in July 2008 for the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the accidental death of the girl.

The Public Ministry ended up archiving the process, which can always be reopened if new data considered to be consistent emerges.

In Expresso/with Lusa 7.12.09

[quote="Laffin Assasin"]

sans_souci wrote:h well, that is a completely different question, and one that you would need to adress to the police force in question. Personally, I think the investigation into Madeleines disappearance should be open and active. If the PJ really thought the McCanns were guilty, but not being co-operative, then they should have interrogated them a bit more effectively. Surely they don't rely on suspects being "co-operative" to solve their crimes? (sorry guv, but, well, they wouldn't answer the questions, so, well, er, thats it. What can we do....?)

A different perspective - there is much critisism that Kate did not answer 48 questions, and that the tapas 7 did not agree to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction.

Perfectly reasonable questions have been put as to whether this has jeapodised the investigation.

To look at it from a different point of view, the McCanns were made arguidos on what has turned out to be precious little evidence. Whilst they were still arguidos the taps 7 were invited back to join in a reconstruction. I think any element of trust had gone - if your friends who you believe to be innocent are pronounced "suspects" in the case, there is clearly a risk in going back to Portugal.

Would I go back to Portugal under those circumstances - not on your life, espcially with young children. And at the time I suspect the mccanns felt the same. Would YOU have gone back?

In a freaking heartbeat! If my child was missing, not only would I have gone back for a reconstruction, I would have insisted my friends come back with me!

As INNOCENT parents I assume most of us would do whatever ("move the earth") we can.
To go back for a re-construction is only one little important issue. An issue with could probably help your daughter and the police.
You would go back with or even without your friends.
There is the possibility that the police drop you (I mean the McCanns) from the status arguida/arguido.
If you are innocent you would like to show the police that you are not guilty.
And you would do everything to help them.
You would - amongst other things - provide your bank-records and also medical-records.

malena stool wrote:Seemingly Beattie her 'motherly instinct' took second place to her devotion to team McCann's needs..........

Hi Malena,

I did wonder whether O"Brien played some part in hiding Madeleine"s body and Jane"s sighting of Bundleman was to muddy the waters to protect him. That to me is the real reason they wouldn"t attend a recon, because the torn page from the Children"s book showed timelines which they had worked out before being questioned
by the Police.

Yes and then arrogantly left the evidence as to what they had been doing.....in their daughter's book for God's sake. They have no shame or conscience...

malena stool wrote:Yes and then arrogantly left the evidence as to what they had been doing.....in their daughter's book for God's sake. They have no shame or conscience...

With no Clarence Mitchell to hide behind and a Portugese Lawyer who hardly knows them, plus Edward Smethurst who is not in the same league as Carter Ruck , not to mention a hostile Portugese Nation, plus
a Portugese Press which will not be so pro-mcCann as most of the U.K. Press, I should think they will feel
quite intimidated when the Trial eventually starts.

Everything seems stacked against them in a Portuguese courtroom, I can't see why they are pursuing Amaral in this way. The ease which Brown had him moved from his post is worrying and might point to devious moves still to come.

malena stool wrote:Everything seems stacked against them in a Portuguese courtroom, I can't see why they are pursuing Amaral in this way. The ease which Brown had him moved from his post is worrying and might point to devious moves still to come.

I should think Gordon Brown has too much else to worry about and the recent revelation re Halligen that yet
again the McCanns have mismanaged the Fund will have reduced their support from influential people I should
imagine.

I hope your right Beattie but the McCanns have had their path smoothed for them at every turn by what can only be a very high source of influence, it is a concern at what point their minder is going to kick the props from under their bandwagon.

malena stool wrote:I hope your right Beattie but the McCanns have had their path smoothed for them at every turn by what can only be a very high source of influence, it is a concern at what point their minder is going to kick the props from under their bandwagon.

I suppose the first test will be on this coming Court hearing. If the injunction is lifted on the sale of Amaral"s book and DVD the playing field will be level and we can assume that no outside influence was brought to bear.

That would be novel Beattie, (no pun intended) and possibly the start of a return to normality on how all child abusers are and should be treated by the judicial system.

malena stool wrote:That would be novel Beattie, (no pun intended) and possibly the start of a return to normality on how all child abusers are and should be treated by the judicial system.

We can but hope.

yes hope is all we have , but like everything else regarding the Mccanns , they usually get their way!

Fortunately, the only subject on trial here will be whether Amaral told the truth in his book...that is what this is all about and the only thing the judge will be interested in, I cant possibly see how he can prove it was the truth when even the PJ had to admit that, on releasing them from Arguido status that there was no evidence that the McCanns were involved with Madeleine's disappearance, so unless he knows something no-one else is privvy to, then I would think the PJ would want to know why he kept that information to himself, so I dont believe Amaral can win either way. Carter-Ruck offered their services and being the best, they dont back losers..thats my opinion for what it's worth. If Amaral does not settle out of court then I'm sure he will be advised what he may face in court.

stellarose wrote:Fortunately, the only subject on trial here will be whether Amaral told the truth in his book...that is what this is all about and the only thing the judge will be interested in, I cant possibly see how he can prove it was the truth when even the PJ had to admit that, on releasing them from Arguido status that there was no evidence that the McCanns were involved with Madeleine's disappearance, so unless he knows something no-one else is privvy to, then I would think the PJ would want to know why he kept that information to himself, so I dont believe Amaral can win either way. Carter-Ruck offered their services and being the best, they dont back losers..thats my opinion for what it's worth. If Amaral does not settle out of court then I'm sure he will be advised what he may face in court.

Everything in Gonçalo Amaral's book is true, based on the police files of the investigation. How many times does one have to say this, he does not invent anything in the book, there are no fantasies, ponto final. Maybe, you would be interested to know that among the witnesses for GA's defense are PJ inspectors. The case was shelved due to political interference not for investigative reasons. This is the only time in Portugal that a case of a missing child has been closed. You can be sure that this was against the wishes of the police and the judge but was in accordance to what the parents wanted. They did not want a real investigation.

The McCanns' strategy was to force him to settle out of court by freezing his assets and the last thing they want to do is to face him in a courtroom.

What really bothers the McCanns the most is that the police files were made public and that was a huge shock for them. If this gets to a trial I don't think they have any case for defamation since the book is entirely based on the files. That is the reason why they are trying to win this outside on the court steps instead of in the courtroom.

Carolina wrote:What really bothers the McCanns the most is that the police files were made public and that was a huge shock for them. If this gets to a trial I don't think they have any case for defamation since the book is entirely based on the files. That is the reason why they are trying to win this outside on the court steps instead of in the courtroom.

You are right, Carolina, I don't think that they believed for one nanosecond that it would go this far.