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

I'm still wondering if sans_souci can identify any parts of Gonçalo Amaral's book which he feels could be identified as libelous.

His thesis in the book is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents covered it up. I believe he also claimed that they simulated an abduction. These are crimes in Portugal. He also claims that an abduction was quite impossible, with his proof involving the impossibility of using the front door because it was locked and nobody had permission to usae a key. In his DVD he expands on those claims. In his interviews he seems to go somewhat further, with various claims involving one of the tapas 7.

He is therefore claiming that Madeleine is dead and the parents are involved. This is not underwritten by the final report.

Unless he can come up with further proof, he has libelled them according to the present state of the investigation.

These

sans_souci wrote:His thesis in the book is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents covered it up. I believe he also claimed that they simulated an abduction. These are crimes in Portugal. He also claims that an abduction was quite impossible, with his proof involving the impossibility of using the front door because it was locked and nobody had permission to usae a key. In his DVD he expands on those claims. In his interviews he seems to go somewhat further, with various claims involving one of the tapas 7.

He is therefore claiming that Madeleine is dead and the parents are involved. This is not underwritten by the final report.

Unless he can come up with further proof, he has libelled them according to the present state of the investigation.

These

It is not "his" thesis in the book, it is the conclusion of the investigation carried out by both the Portuguese and British police, which he has always emphasised in his interview, and is sustained by the police files. This is not some personal fantasy he has made up.

The final report by the PP does not rule out any possibility and states that it is most likely that Maddie is dead.

sans_souci wrote:His thesis in the book is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents covered it up. I believe he also claimed that they simulated an abduction. These are crimes in Portugal. He also claims that an abduction was quite impossible, with his proof involving the impossibility of using the front door because it was locked and nobody had permission to usae a key. In his DVD he expands on those claims. In his interviews he seems to go somewhat further, with various claims involving one of the tapas 7.

He is therefore claiming that Madeleine is dead and the parents are involved. This is not underwritten by the final report.

Unless he can come up with further proof, he has libelled them according to the present state of the investigation.

These

Sans_souci,

See Carolina's message. As far as I can gather, the thesis put forward in the book is not Sr Amaral's personal opinion, but the conclusions of the investigating teams. If you know differently, please supply quotes from the book with chapter references so that I can be enlightened.

sans_souci wrote:His thesis in the book is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents covered it up. I believe he also claimed that they simulated an abduction. These are crimes in Portugal. He also claims that an abduction was quite impossible, with his proof involving the impossibility of using the front door because it was locked and nobody had permission to usae a key. In his DVD he expands on those claims. In his interviews he seems to go somewhat further, with various claims involving one of the tapas 7.

He is therefore claiming that Madeleine is dead and the parents are involved. This is not underwritten by the final report.

Unless he can come up with further proof, he has libelled them according to the present state of the investigation.

These

Only it's not his thesis, it's the Public Prosecutor's thesis at the conclusion of the investigation. So the "wrong" person is getting sued.

ETA - oops! This has already been posted, and much more eloquently than I have! Sorry!

The Famous Grouse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:His thesis in the book is that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents covered it up. I believe he also claimed that they simulated an abduction. These are crimes in Portugal. He also claims that an abduction was quite impossible, with his proof involving the impossibility of using the front door because it was locked and nobody had permission to usae a key. In his DVD he expands on those claims. In his interviews he seems to go somewhat further, with various claims involving one of the tapas 7.

He is therefore claiming that Madeleine is dead and the parents are involved. This is not underwritten by the final report.

Unless he can come up with further proof, he has libelled them according to the present state of the investigation.

These

Only it's not his thesis, it's the Public Prosecutor's thesis at the conclusion of the investigation. So the "wrong" person is getting sued.

ETA - oops! This has already been posted, and much more eloquently than I have! Sorry!

The more the merrier, TFG! We can all wait for sans_souci now to tell us where he thinks the libel lies!

Yes, the McCanns sued the wrong person.

They should really have sued the Public Prosecutor .

And Tavares Almeida, of course!

But NOT Dr. Amaral.

He is just a kind of "mouthpiece".

Hmmmmm....

Interesting to see the usual suspects ganging up.

Amarals thesis is that the Madeleine died in the apartment, the parents were involved at least in concealing a cadaver, simulating an abduction etc. You are saying that all he is doing is repeating what is in the process? Really? It may have been a working hypothesis at some stage during the investigation, but the final reports of PJ and the PP do not agree.

PJ final report, conclusion.

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.

Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

From the conculsion to the PP statement.

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic’s Prosecutor

(José de Magalhães e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(João Melchior Gomes).

________________________

These are parts of the process, important parts. A question - could you provide a reference in the book to the PJ final report and the prosecutor statement or the PJ final report?

If they are really desperate to sue someone the McCanns should sue themselves, that's one brief their libel crazy lawyers would get my support for.

It was the parents that created the situation that Madeleine 'found herself in'.....no one else.

Was Madeleine definitely abducted by a stranger who entered the apartment. That's what we've been told. Now if this isn't what the official files say shouldn't we be told that.

MaryB wrote:Was Madeleine definitely abducted by a stranger who entered the apartment. That's what we've been told. Now if this isn't what the official files say shouldn't we be told that.

The fact is we simply do not know what happened to Madeleine. All possibilities remain open, including the one you state. The official report says that following the investigation they do not know.

Would it be correct to say that Madeleine's parents know what happened to her. Whatever that may be. But we don't.

And WHAT ABOUT:

The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:

1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;

2. There was simulation of abduction.

3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.

4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;

5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.

????



May it no longer apply?


And aren´t Dr. Amarals witnesses very powerful?

Sans, I assume we have a little tiff.
Some posters write about the conclusions above ("number a" ) and you write about "number b".
Different issues but both not wrong as far as I know.

I think the jigsaw is not absolutely complete for the PJ.
They don´t know who it did, for example.
But imo it is clear that an abduction has been ruled out.
100%.
And we have the dogs and the lies and and and...
Not lots of possiblities then.

No tiff - merely a little disagreement.

As far as I can see all possibilities are still open, and that includes abduction. Why is it felt that abduction can be ruled out 100%?

It will be interesting to see what happens in January. Will Amaral appear in court to appeal the judgement? My prediction is that after a bit of posturing he will eventually drop the appeal, perhaps pleading that he cannot afford it or for some other reason. Very interesting article on that subject from 24 horas - a ewspaper that seems to have changed its tune of late (still a tabloid though). So who knows.

It will be interesting to see what happens in January. Will Amaral appear in court to appeal the judgement? My prediction is that after a bit of posturing he will eventually drop the appeal, perhaps pleading that he cannot afford it or for some other reason.

You wish!!

Dr Amaral has been trying for two years now to get the McCanns inside a court. He's hardly likely to give up now.

I don't think he will drop it, not even for a lot of money. He can't be bought off, not like Murat and co.

Too right fred, his reputation and professionalism were called to question by the McCanns, not to forget the harassment and grief brought down on his family by their arrogance, their bloody mindedness and lies.

He also owes them and their ambulance chasing minder Clarence Mitchell for a destroyed career.

I doubt if he could ever on his own have got them into a Portuguese court, Carter Ruck and the myriad of hidden flunkies supplied by HMG and the 'Find Madeleine Fund' would have blocked him at every turn. They have offered themselves up to him, (or that's how I see it anyway).

sans_souci wrote:No tiff - merely a little disagreement.

As far as I can see all possibilities are still open, and that includes abduction. Why is it felt that abduction can be ruled out 100%?

It will be interesting to see what happens in January. Will Amaral appear in court to appeal the judgement? My prediction is that after a bit of posturing he will eventually drop the appeal, perhaps pleading that he cannot afford it or for some other reason. Very interesting article on that subject from 24 horas - a ewspaper that seems to have changed its tune of late (still a tabloid though). So who knows.

You can only say this because you do not know who Gonçalo Amaral is and what is at stake. For the Portuguese people it is freedom of expression that is being threatened.

As for the so-called article in 24 Horas, I think that you are referring to the open letter that the McCanns' PR sent to the paper.

sans_souci wrote:No tiff - merely a little disagreement.

As far as I can see all possibilities are still open, and that includes abduction. Why is it felt that abduction can be ruled out 100%?

It will be interesting to see what happens in January. Will Amaral appear in court to appeal the judgement? My prediction is that after a bit of posturing he will eventually drop the appeal, perhaps pleading that he cannot afford it or for some other reason. Very interesting article on that subject from 24 horas - a ewspaper that seems to have changed its tune of late (still a tabloid though). So who knows.

You can only say this because you do not know who Gonçalo Amaral is and what is at stake. For the Portuguese people it is freedom of expression that is being threatened.

As for the so-called article in 24 Horas, I think that you are referring to the open letter that the McCanns' PR sent to the paper.

You seem to see this as some sort of national crusade, which is interesting. The case is ongoing within the Portuguese justice system, Portuguese law, Portuguese court and Portuguese judges. So presumably they have an appreciation of all four principles emcomapssed by Article 37 of the Portuguese constitution. Freedom of expression does not provide a licence to defame another person.

sans_souci wrote:You seem to see this as some sort of national crusade, which is interesting. The case is ongoing within the Portuguese justice system, Portuguese law, Portuguese court and Portuguese judges. So presumably they have an appreciation of all four principles emcomapssed by Article 37 of the Portuguese constitution. Freedom of expression does not provide a licence to defame another person.

The problem is that the McCanns were in no way defamed by Dr. Amaral in his book and in his interviews. Once again, I would appreciate it if you could provide me and the other posters with an examples where he has actually defamed them. Despite several requests to this affect, you have never answered.

sans_souci wrote: No tiff - merely a little disagreement.

As far as I can see all possibilities are still open, and that includes abduction. Why is it felt that abduction can be ruled out 100%?

Wrong!!!!. Only the abduction theory is valid.
All the other possibilities were temporarily banned by a Judge who knows nothing about the investigation and based her ruling only on the McCann's point of view.
In fact your statement is a bit bold if you don't mind me saying so.
There is only one possibility, and that is the 'abduction' under almost impossible circumstances.
Remember, the McCann's lawyers are watching. Do not mention any other explanation but abduction.

Who cares if Amaral and his team add among themselves more than 400 years of professional experience in investigating crimes, lies and liars? They still don’t have a right to a different opinion.
You do not have the right to a different opinion.
I do not have a right to a different opinion.
In fact no one has a right to a different opinion if or until the McCann's say so.
If you keep insisting on alternative explanations to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann we may be forced to start a new petition to defend your freedom of opinion.

sans_souci wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in January. Will Amaral appear in court to appeal the judgement? My prediction is that after a bit of posturing he will eventually drop the appeal, perhaps pleading that he cannot afford it or for some other reason. Very interesting article on that subject from 24 horas - a ewspaper that seems to have changed its tune of late (still a tabloid though). So who knows.

Hmmm ... I suspect you are confusing the appeal against the injunction with the main libel case, but that wouldn't be the first time.
I don't know if you noticed this before but Judges rule based on arguments and proof presented inside court houses, not on the 'proof' produced by the media. So far no real proof has been scrutinised in an open court.
Besides, whatever proof is brought into court must be directly related to the case.

Basically what’s at stake here is the right of a long experienced investigator, supported by the long experience of other investigators to formulate a theory about a crime.
It doesn’t matter if the other investigators that picked up the case didn’t add anything that could prove or disprove the theory of the initial team.
In fact the first theory is as valid as the second non theory.

I understand you might be confused by the different judicial proceedings, or perhaps you’re just trying to confuse others.

Take for instance your snide remark about those 11 people that were outside the court house supporting Amaral.
There could be only one supporter and Amaral could still win the appeal or one million supporters and Amaral could lose it.
I can assure you that I never saw a judge coming outside the court room and ask the members of the public to raise hands and vote for the guilt or innocence of the arguidos.
Unlike the UK, the concept of fair or unfair trial is non existent in the Portuguese and many other European judicial systems.

[quote]Unlike the UK, the concept of fair or unfair trial is non existent in the Portuguese and many other European judicial systems.

Does that mean if you lose you can't appeal. Sorry to be dim, but I've had a few vinhos?