McCann guarantee not to asfixiar Gonçalo Amaral financially, CdM, 23.12.09

Well, this story does seem to be consistent with their approach to the case - a few point spring to mind:

They are responding to libel, and taking action in the courts. They have brought an action in a Portuguese court, and there is no suggestion that they would seek to sue for libel in a UK court.

As with their action against Bennett, their motivation is for the libel to cease, not financial destruction of the individual.

For the perpetrator of the libel not to profit from that libel (which is a perfectly reasonable principle), hence the claim for the approximate amount of profits from the book.

As far as I recall, the McCanns were in Portugal, in December, with their lawyer, for the start of the hearing. It was Amarals side who requested an adjournment.

And oh dear Mr Hare - I fear you may need to spend Christmas reviewing your "law for dummies". If an out of court settlement were being discussed, then what on earth akes you think that this may involve the McCanns making an offer of financial settlement to Amaral? If they wanted to drop the case (extremely unlikely in my vie), all they need to do is to withdraw. And that would be that.

sans_souci wrote:And oh dear Mr Hare - I fear you may need to spend Christmas reviewing your "law for dummies". If an out of court settlement were being discussed, then what on earth akes you think that this may involve the McCanns making an offer of financial settlement to Amaral? If they wanted to drop the case (extremely unlikely in my vie), all they need to do is to withdraw. And that would be that.

Of course they could withdraw, but then they may well risk a counter action from GA and his publishers for loss of earnings caused by their vexacious injunction, and they'd be on pretty dodgy ground if they where to do so. Extracting themselves from this mess is going to take some very nifty footwork indeed.

The Hare will now make a prediction .

Mr Hare predicts that the McCann's current libel lawyer Isabel Duarte will refuse to represent the McCann's, and the fallout from this event will be quite spectacular.

sans_souci wrote:Well, this story does seem to be consistent with their approach to the case - a few point spring to mind:

They are responding to libel, and taking action in the courts. They have brought an action in a Portuguese court, and there is no suggestion that they would seek to sue for libel in a UK court.

As with their action against Bennett, their motivation is for the libel to cease, not financial destruction of the individual.

For the perpetrator of the libel not to profit from that libel (which is a perfectly reasonable principle), hence the claim for the approximate amount of profits from the book.

As far as I recall, the McCanns were in Portugal, in December, with their lawyer, for the start of the hearing. It was Amarals side who requested an adjournment.

And oh dear Mr Hare - I fear you may need to spend Christmas reviewing your "law for dummies". If an out of court settlement were being discussed, then what on earth akes you think that this may involve the McCanns making an offer of financial settlement to Amaral? If they wanted to drop the case (extremely unlikely in my vie), all they need to do is to withdraw. And that would be that.

I think very few people believe they are responding to libel; the contents of Gonçalo Amaral's book are based on information from the police investigation which is in the public domain. It is unlikely that that could be deemed libellous. I also believe that Tony Bennett and Debbie were threatened with the loss of their homes and bankruptcy if they didn't do as Carter Ruck demanded, because they couldn't afford to fight the case. In my opinion, the same bullying tactics are being used here: threaten to go to court, threaten that somebody will lose everything, unless they give in. The McCanns have plenty of money behind them and can afford to go to court and their targets usually don't, and they rely on that.
The McCanns were indeed in Portugal in December, with their lawyer, for the start of the hearing. Gonçalo Amaral was also there, and entered the court openly through the front door unlike the McCanns who scuttled in through the back entrance. His lawyer would have been there too, if he had not been ordered upon medical advice to stay at home because he had been in contact with someone (his secretary) who had just been diagnosed with swine flu. Are you insinuating that 'Amaral's side requested an adjournment' without genuine reason? I hardly think Amaral and his high-powered witnesses would stoop so low, nor that Portuguese courts are so stupid as to fall for such a ploy. Perhaps you were hoping that the court case would go ahead without Amaral having the benefit of his lawyer? What a 'fair hearing' that would have been - not!!!

Well, I expect we shall soon know.


And if we are in the business of making predictions, mine is that Amaral will find some reason to postpone the case again in January, a new date will be set for February when he will not contest the injunction pleading inability to fund his appeal. Preferable to losing the appeal which would cause harm to his defence of the main libel action.

Of course not Catalina - but I recall a number of posters on this very site suggesting that this was a clever ploy to unsettle the McCanns. It reamins to be seen what will actually happen in January.

sans_souci wrote:Well, I expect we shall soon know.


And if we are in the business of making predictions, mine is that Amaral will find some reason to postpone the case again in January, a new date will be set for February when he will not contest the injunction pleading inability to fund his appeal. Preferable to losing the appeal which would cause harm to his defence of the main libel action.

You think that the swine-flu-issue has been a lie???

Personally, I have no idea. Some posters here seem to think it may have been a ploy. I have no doubt that his secretary had flu. How many people do you know who have been quaantined because a friend, family member or colleague has been diagnosed with swine flu?

For te record, I can see no earthly reason why the McCanns would consider withdrawing their suit - they would appear to have a very strong case. Especially if Amaral is relying on Tavares statement as the justification for his thesis - it is likely the judges will ask for the PJ final report and the PP and AG statements.

It is of course quite possible that either side may seek an out of court settlement, to avoid a serious escalation in legal fees and other costs in contesting a case. But that is a different issue.

sans_souci wrote:Personally, I have no idea. Some posters here seem to think it may have been a ploy. I have no doubt that his secretary had flu. How many people do you know who have been quaantined because a friend, family member or colleague has been diagnosed with swine flu?

For te record, I can see no earthly reason why the McCanns would consider withdrawing their suit - they would appear to have a very strong case. Especially if Amaral is relying on Tavares statement as the justification for his thesis - it is likely the judges will ask for the PJ final report and the PP and AG statements.

It is of course quite possible that either side may seek an out of court settlement, to avoid a serious escalation in legal fees and other costs in contesting a case. But that is a different issue.

I think it is likely that Dr Amaral is relying on the fact that his book is simply a record of the investigation, which was carried out jointly by Portuguese and English police. That investigation involved Mark Harrison, who was the first to suggest that Madeleine was dead and that the teams should be looking for a body. (See chapter 16)

IMO it's gone too far for McCanns to stop things now however much it might suit them; this is a fight to the finish.

I share your thoughts T4Two and there are some great analogies on this thread!

Mr Hare predicts that the McCann's current libel lawyer Isabel Duarte will refuse to represent the McCann's, and the fallout from this event will be quite spectacular.

And if that ever comes to pass it really would be quite... Interesting times ahead me thinks!

If that came to pass it would be interesting. But one hell of a big if.

One of the things that Amaral seems to be relying on is his rights under article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution - his right to freedom of expression. On Morais Blogspot this is quotes as:

1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

However, that is a truncated version of the article. The fuller version is:

1. Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.

2. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.

3. Infractions committed in the exercise of the said rights shall be subject to the general principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and shall be brought before the courts of law or an independent administrative body respectively, as laid down by law.

4. Every person and body corporate shall be equally and effectively guaranteed the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

It would seem that Amaral is exercising his righ in respect of paragraphs 1 and 2 - and the McCanns are exercising theirs in respect of paragraph 4. And the proper way to resolve such conflicts is in accord with paragraph 3.

You may be quite right sans.

Trouble is I can't help but think that if I genuinely believed that my daughter was being held by God knows who, whether looked after like a princess or not, I would be far more concerned with looking for her than worrying about what other people have to say and how I could stop them saying it. Probably sounds insane I know, but I guess that's my point, - a much more normal state imho.

sans_souci wrote:Well, this story does seem to be consistent with their approach to the case - a few point spring to mind:

They are responding to libel, and taking action in the courts. They have brought an action in a Portuguese court, and there is no suggestion that they would seek to sue for libel in a UK court.

As with their action against Bennett, their motivation is for the libel to cease, not financial destruction of the individual.

For the perpetrator of the libel not to profit from that libel (which is a perfectly reasonable principle), hence the claim for the approximate amount of profits from the book.

As far as I recall, the McCanns were in Portugal, in December, with their lawyer, for the start of the hearing. It was Amarals side who requested an adjournment.

And oh dear Mr Hare - I fear you may need to spend Christmas reviewing your "law for dummies". If an out of court settlement were being discussed, then what on earth akes you think that this may involve the McCanns making an offer of financial settlement to Amaral? If they wanted to drop the case (extremely unlikely in my vie), all they need to do is to withdraw. And that would be that.

It seems to me that the McCanns are changing their mantra from libel to the struggle between freedom of expression and the right to their good name because they know very well that everything in Gonçalo Amaral's book is true and can be confirmed by the police files. Furthermore, the parents only like to quote specific lines in the PP's report which suit their own PR purposes. I would like to remind you that one of GA's witnesses is the judge who actually wrote that report.

You can be sure that GA does not want to in any way settle out of court because the fight is for the preservation of the basic rights, as consecrated in the Portuguese constitution, as well as for justice for Madeleine and for the honour of the Portuguese institutions, which were constantly maligned by the McCanns. These are values which are beyond the comprehension of these negligent parents.

I have no faith in justice, or rather the truth being served, either in the UK or Portugal. The 'best' lawyers win cases nowadays and IMO truth is a casualty.

If the McCanns wanted to totally disprove the facts in Sr Amaral's book, why didn't they call a press conference and refute them one by one?

Probably for the same reason that they didn't do a reconstruction. It would've seemed like a farce.

sans_souci wrote:Well, this story does seem to be consistent with their approach to the case - a few point spring to mind:

They are responding to libel, and taking action in the courts. They have brought an action in a Portuguese court, and there is no suggestion that they would seek to sue for libel in a UK court.

As with their action against Bennett, their motivation is for the libel to cease, not financial destruction of the individual.

For the perpetrator of the libel not to profit from that libel (which is a perfectly reasonable principle), hence the claim for the approximate amount of profits from the book.

As far as I recall, the McCanns were in Portugal, in December, with their lawyer, for the start of the hearing. It was Amarals side who requested an adjournment.

And oh dear Mr Hare - I fear you may need to spend Christmas reviewing your "law for dummies". If an out of court settlement were being discussed, then what on earth akes you think that this may involve the McCanns making an offer of financial settlement to Amaral? If they wanted to drop the case (extremely unlikely in my vie), all they need to do is to withdraw. And that would be that.

Gonçalo Amaral has always said that he wants to meet the McCanns in a courtroom and I know that his position has not changed and will not change. The McCanns have never wanted to go that far, because they know very well that they and their claims would not stand the test of a proper legal confrontation in a courtroom. Withdrawing could be extremely costly for them as GA, the publisher and the producer could countersue for loss of earnings.

The McCanns are trapped in their own strategy which foresaw GA dropping to his knees and begging for an out of court settlement. This did not happen and they have no choice but to continue and I think that this perspective frightens them. The British press will be present in the courtroom and will be reporting on everything that is said. Information that contradicts what the McCanns have been spouting since the case was shelved will (hopefully) be duly reported to the British public. It will be shown that the final report by the PP did not exonerate them.

Whether or not swine flu was part of a game ( if I know South Europeans - I live in Greece - it was ), the McCann's have been shown the exact hostility of the environment they are going to war in.

They are not comfortable now and neither is their lawyer.

I just wouldn't want to be in them.

oversoon wrote:They are not comfortable now and neither is their lawyer.

If I where advising the McCann's I'd be suggesting that perhaps its time to change lawyers before the British press get a chance to associate her with the case. She'll be much harder to remove later, and if, as I predict, she walks of her own free will for reasons of self presevation, that would be a PR disaster of epic proportions.

The cracks are definately starting to show now.

oversoon wrote:Whether or not swine flu was part of a game ( if I know South Europeans - I live in Greece - it was ), the McCann's have been shown the exact hostility of the environment they are going to war in.

They are not comfortable now and neither is their lawyer.

I just wouldn't want to be in them.

Yes, they have been shown the environment and there is to be a rally in support of Sr Amaral on January 10th, I think. So, if they thought they were going to just dash in, dash out again and get away from the hostile environment, they were wrong. There may be more people next time in support of Sr Amaral and the McCanns have a few weeks to stew and to consider what Amaral's witnesses may come out with. The McCanns selective reading and interpretation of the police files for the UK media may be shown for what it is....hopefully!

More than 11 you mean?

This thread is a fascinating example of wishful thinking. On the basis of the original injunction, unless he has something very significant up his sleeve, Amaral has a problem. He has made a number of claims which are not underwritten by either the PJ final report or the PP report. And courts tend to be rather boring and old fashioned when it comes to paperwork - official reports are given a lot of weight, and the final report is likely to carry more weight than tavares september statement. If any part of his book can be shown to be libellous, he will lose, and that will be expensive for him.

As for why didnt they call a press conference - what would that do? Much better that these issues are thrashed out in the appropriate place - in a court of law.

sans_souci wrote:Much better that these issues are thrashed out in the appropriate place - in a court of law.

Absolutely agreed. Hopefully the McCann's are in agreement too

Sans, you wrote: Official reports are given a lot of weight, and the final report is likely to carry more weight than tavares september statement.

I assume the Tavares report is important.
Very important.
And more important is IF new evidende came to light after Tavares report has been written.
I don´t think so.
And P. Rebelo stated that Dr. Amaral has done a very good job.
I believe that nothing new emerged.
Therefore the case has still not been re-opened.

sans_souci wrote:More than 11 you mean?

This thread is a fascinating example of wishful thinking. On the basis of the original injunction, unless he has something very significant up his sleeve, Amaral has a problem. He has made a number of claims which are not underwritten by either the PJ final report or the PP report. And courts tend to be rather boring and old fashioned when it comes to paperwork - official reports are given a lot of weight, and the final report is likely to carry more weight than tavares september statement. If any part of his book can be shown to be libellous, he will lose, and that will be expensive for him.

As for why didnt they call a press conference - what would that do? Much better that these issues are thrashed out in the appropriate place - in a court of law.

I am sure that I have read this post before, you are getting a bit repetitive. I have asked you many times if you could state which passages in the book are libellous and I have yet to receive any reply from you. What is written in the book is true and based on the police files made public.

Gonçalo Amaral is not required to come up with anything significant nor is he required to solve the case in court in order to win the appeal. I would like to point out that the PJ and the PP reports do not exonerate the parents in any way. In fact, the author of the PP report, Magalhães e Meneses, is one of the witnesses called up by Gonçalo Amaral to testify on his behalf. I have mentioned this before but you seem to ignore it.

Given that it is no secret that there has been massive political pressure put on anyone in any way disagreeing with this "abduction" what guarantee do we have of fair play within the courtroom? Unless the judge is impartial it will be just another kick in the teeth for Amaral and all of us who long for justice to be done. Having witnessed this whole unbelievable charade and seen the Mcanns lies upheld by the british press, the BBC and other TV and news channels can we feel confident that there will not be more, and more sinister, interference from some Very Important People, desperate to protect their own hides and currently in a position to do so. I am not referring to the Mccanns, they are about as important to me as their own daughters life was to them.

sans_souci wrote:More than 11 you mean?

This thread is a fascinating example of wishful thinking. On the basis of the original injunction, unless he has something very significant up his sleeve, Amaral has a problem. He has made a number of claims which are not underwritten by either the PJ final report or the PP report. And courts tend to be rather boring and old fashioned when it comes to paperwork - official reports are given a lot of weight, and the final report is likely to carry more weight than tavares september statement. If any part of his book can be shown to be libellous, he will lose, and that will be expensive for him.

As for why didnt they call a press conference - what would that do? Much better that these issues are thrashed out in the appropriate place - in a court of law.

Do you have an opinion about which parts of the book might be libelous?

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:More than 11 you mean?

This thread is a fascinating example of wishful thinking. On the basis of the original injunction, unless he has something very significant up his sleeve, Amaral has a problem. He has made a number of claims which are not underwritten by either the PJ final report or the PP report. And courts tend to be rather boring and old fashioned when it comes to paperwork - official reports are given a lot of weight, and the final report is likely to carry more weight than tavares september statement. If any part of his book can be shown to be libellous, he will lose, and that will be expensive for him.

As for why didnt they call a press conference - what would that do? Much better that these issues are thrashed out in the appropriate place - in a court of law.

Do you have an opinion about which parts of the book might be libelous?

I'm curious about that too, especially because the concept of 'libellous' and the burden of proof varies among legal jurisdictions.
Who knows, maybe I learn something new today .. or not …
Sans_Souci?
Well?

lnorton wrote:Given that it is no secret that there has been massive political pressure put on anyone in any way disagreeing with this "abduction" what guarantee do we have of fair play within the courtroom? Unless the judge is impartial it will be just another kick in the teeth for Amaral and all of us who long for justice to be done. Having witnessed this whole unbelievable charade and seen the Mcanns lies upheld by the british press, the BBC and other TV and news channels can we feel confident that there will not be more, and more sinister, interference from some Very Important People, desperate to protect their own hides and currently in a position to do so. I am not referring to the Mccanns, they are about as important to me as their own daughters life was to them.

Name them ?

Number 1, GORDON BROWN ! say I.