Will they get their £1.2 million.

**MaryB** Sat 20 Feb - 23:45

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I was wondering if folk thought they'd get their £1.2 million. I'm not sure. To be honest. But I did think a while back before this case that the book might stay banned but even then that wouldn't be a guarantee of them getting the £1.2 million. did the judge actually say why the ban stayed in place. In plain language that is not legalspeak.

**Lioned** Sat 20 Feb - 23:48

I would imagine they will win that case as well and be awarded some money as the book made accusations for which they havn't been convicted,in other words they have been 'libelled' in the eyes of the courts ( i think).

**Dimsie** Sun 21 Feb - 0:44

Possibly they will, but they'll find it comes at a heavy price. They're not popular at the minute, if public comments on newspaper sites are anything to go by; if they're seen to be 'making money' out of Madeleine, something they've accused other people of doing, I think they'll find themselves held in contempt by many people. They can say the money is going into the Fund, but what they don't advertise is that they're now both directors of the Fund and have a say in how the money is spent. Having a Fund whose board of directors is composed of their two selves and various relatives and friends isn't quite the same as having a Fund run by people with no personal connection to them, or having a Fund where a full breakdown of every penny spent is published openly for all to read.

jinvta Sun 21 Feb - 1:02

I am really beginning to wonder if the libel case will ever happen. I think that Amaral actually hopes that the McCanns will go through with it. Could he not countersue them for libel as well? It is obvious that Team McCann (through the use of spokesidiots and family members) made a concerted effort to discredit Amaral. His only recourse was to write the book.

Are the McCanns willing to risk more evidence coming out in court and the possibility of being forced to take the stand? If called as witnesses by the defense, their failure to answer questions under oath will not look good to a judge or jury.

Also, as mentioned on another thread, it might be possible that some evidence that was not admissable in a criminal court, may be admissable in a civil court.

I remain hopeful that the McCanns will not receive a cent of Amaral's money. It stinks to high heaven that they waited until the book had saturated the market before bringing their court case. If the book was so hurtful and unhelpful, why didn't they ask for the injunction immediately when the book was published? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

**T4two** Sun 21 Feb - 1:44

They may well be awarded some token sum as compensation for libel, but certainly not the amount they are seeking, because to put it diplomatically, by waiting so long before starting their action, they have been seen to do nothing to limit the damage they claim has been done to their reputations. Of course with all the appeals, the whole thing could go on for years, so IMO before a penny is due to be paid, the case will have been solved. Whether it would then be be worthwhile for Dr. Amaral to counter sue is doubtful, since everyone they have taken money from will be looking to get it back. That's an awful lot of mailbags they're going to have to sew.

jinvta Sun 21 Feb - 5:46

T4two wrote:They may well be awarded some token sum as compensation for libel, but certainly not the amount they are seeking, because to put it diplomatically, by waiting so long before starting their action, they have been seen to do nothing to limit the damage they claim has been done to their reputations. Of course with all the appeals, the whole thing could go on for years, so IMO before a penny is due to be paid, the case will have been solved. Whether it would then be be worthwhile for Dr. Amaral to counter sue is doubtful, since everyone they have taken money from will be looking to get it back. That's an awful lot of mailbags they're going to have to sew.

You may be right right T4two, but I am hopeful that they will not win at all. If they win even a token amount, they will claim multiple times that amount in lawyer's fees. I agree that waiting so long does not look good for them, and their motives will need to be questioned. In the US, I believe that countersuits are often handled at the same time as the original lawsuit in a civil case, but I am not sure how things work in Portugal.

**Lioned** Sun 21 Feb - 13:08

I still think it most likely that the mccanns will face fraud charges eventually and nothing else.

Guest Sun 21 Feb - 13:10

will they get 1.2 m? no

Lizzy11268 Sun 21 Feb - 13:20

Lioned wrote:I still think it most likely that the mccanns will face fraud charges eventually and nothing else.

Yes. A famous American criminal was put away for tax fraud if I recall, it was the only way to get him!

Guest Sun 21 Feb - 13:37

Lioned wrote:I still think it most likely that the mccanns will face fraud charges eventually and nothing else.

I agree and the Halligen case could well be their downfall. In the 2009 Accounts John McCann admits in his
Chairman"s report that the McCanns have recieved financial support and also. help with Legal Fees in their
Libel suit against Amaral. When they first recieved the Mortgage payments Esther McVey went on T.V. to say
no Legal Fees would be paid from the Fund. While apparently what they are doing is Legal, it is unethical and
needs a Donor who gave a large donation to demand an investigation.

**LJC** Sun 21 Feb - 13:40

"By rewriting some of the terms of the first injunction, she has allowed him (Mr Amaral) to "speak about the case, and seriously".

Might be she doesn't mind him speaking so long as he does not profit from it, and perhaps it works both ways, so they will not gain either.

jinvta Mon 22 Feb - 4:36

I must say that I was shocked and disappointed that Amaral lost his appeal to have the injunction removed. However, I have been wondering what would his defense be in a libel trial and what would be his chances of winning. I have looked through the book again, and have seen nothing in it that clearly implicates the McCanns in Madeleine's death or hiding her cadaver, but I see alot of suggestions and opinions that the McCanns should be considered as suspects in conducting those acts.

According to Wikipedia, Amaral's possible defenses against such a claim include the following:

In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. (The McCanns cannot prove that Amarals theories are false, though I don't believe that he presented his theories as fact anyway).

Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. (IMO Amaral can prove all facts presented in the book, while his theories on death and hiding the cadaver are opinions). In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. (The McCanns cannot prove that Madeleine is alive, nor that they did not hide her cadaver).

Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. (NOPE!) If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case. (This last bit looks good for Amaral).

Defenses to claims of defamation (also from Wikipedia) include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. (IMO, his statements appear to be made in good faith with belief that they were true).

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege. (Does anyone know if Portugal declines to recognize the distinction between fact and opinion?, as I see nothing in his book that is stated as fact).

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 6:08

I thought the sticking point was that Amaral claimed that the McCanns "hid her body". I havn"t read all the
Book but didn"t the dog find minute blood stains on a shelf in the Wardrobe and I believe this was shown on the DVD.

jinvta Mon 22 Feb - 6:32

Beattie wrote:I thought the sticking point was that Amaral claimed that the McCanns "hid her body". I havn"t read all the
Book but didn"t the dog find minute blood stains on a shelf in the Wardrobe and I believe this was shown on the DVD.

All chapters of the book can be found on this site. From Chapter 22 of the book:

"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."

As long as statements 1-5 are the conclusions of Amaral's team, then the entire statement above is fact. IMO, the conclusions need not be facts themselves, they only need to be the actual conclusions found by the team not to be considered libelous. Another problem for the McCanns is that it is nearly impossible for them to prove any of the statements to be false.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 7:36

I agree, but if it is so obvious, why did the Judge not lift the injunction?

**kitti** Mon 22 Feb - 7:40

Pressure

**AnnaEsse** Mon 22 Feb - 7:43

jinvta wrote:
Beattie wrote:I thought the sticking point was that Amaral claimed that the McCanns "hid her body". I havn"t read all the
Book but didn"t the dog find minute blood stains on a shelf in the Wardrobe and I believe this was shown on the DVD.

All chapters of the book can be found on this site. From Chapter 22 of the book:

"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."

As long as statements 1-5 are the conclusions of Amaral's team, then the entire statement above is fact. IMO, the conclusions need not be facts themselves, they only need to be the actual conclusions found by the team not to be considered libelous. Another problem for the McCanns is that it is nearly impossible for them to prove any of the statements to be false.

As far as I can see the only "proof," they can offer is sightings, none of which have panned out, so at the moment they're shouting about those uninvestigated leads. Also, I guess, Jane Tanner's statement(s): the Murat court case may lead to Ms Tanner being discredited. So, the McCanns are possibly getting rather desperate for a few new witnesses. Perhaps Edgar found some on his recent visit to Praia da Luz.

jinvta Mon 22 Feb - 7:51

Beattie wrote:I agree, but if it is so obvious, why did the Judge not lift the injunction?

I still don't understand why she did not lift the injunction either, but I am not familiar with Portuguese law. The only thing that I can think of is that libel must not be required to sustain an injuction. If she found Amaral's book liebelous, then there would be no need for a libel trial, so I don't believe that libel was proven. Did we ever get an explanation from the judge why the injunction was not lifted? I know Isabel Duarte gives her reasoning (something about the basic human right for dignity and respect usurping the right of freedom of speech), but it may not have been the judge's reasoning.

AnnaEsse I agree, the McCanns have no proof that any of Amaral's conclusions are false, therefore no libel exists.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 8:00

"Morning all,

Iv"e been browsing mailonline and they are still taking comments, so I left another one. One Poster who lived
in Portugal at the time of a girl accepting a lift in a car and being killed says the Portugese would never admit
it was one of their own. Apparently the Family were asked to pay 300,000.00 ransom which they had no hope
of paying. The Portugese Police arrested a Brit, Michael Cook, because his car was similar to the one the girl was
seen getting into. He had done some repair work for the family and would have known the family could not have paid the ransom. Anyway, he was badly beaten while in jail to force a confession out of him and he eventually
"confessed", thinking he would have his day in Court.,but no. He was sentenced to 19 yrs in prison. and the poster remarked that only the MCCanns and Murat were suspects in Madeleine"s disappearance.

I"m worn out after all this two fingered typing and just realised I could have copy and pasted. Will they get their £1.2 million. 294124

Will they get their £1.2 million. 294124

**fred** Mon 22 Feb - 8:04

Michael Cook, did his time, he too was supposedly bashed up to make a confession. i don't know what is true, the little girl got in a car readily she wasn't forced and Michael Cook was a handyman for the family. there were loads of rumours abiut the step-father of Rachel being involved in paedophilia, which again I have no idea is true, I'm pretty sure he died about a year, 18 months after Racels died.

**AnnaEsse** Mon 22 Feb - 8:09

Beattie wrote:"Morning all,

Iv"e been browsing mailonline and they are still taking comments, so I left another one. One Poster who lived
in Portugal at the time of a girl accepting a lift in a car and being killed says the Portugese would never admit
it was one of their own. Apparently the Family were asked to pay 300,000.00 ransom which they had no hope
of paying. The Portugese Police arrested a Brit, Michael Cook, because his car was similar to the one the girl was
seen getting into. He had done some repair work for the family and would have known the family could not have paid the ransom. Anyway, he was badly beaten while in jail to force a confession out of him and he eventually
"confessed", thinking he would have his day in Court.,but no. He was sentenced to 19 yrs in prison. and the poster remarked that only the MCCanns and Murat were suspects in Madeleine"s disappearance.

I"m worn out after all this two fingered typing and just realised I could have copy and pasted.

You'll have nice slim fingers, Beattie!

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 8:13

fred wrote:Michael Cook, did his time, he too was supposedly bashed up to make a confession. i don't know what is true, the little girl got in a car readily she wasn't forced and Michael Cook was a handyman for the family. there were loads of rumours abiut the step-father of Rachel being involved in paedophilia, which again I have no idea is true, I'm pretty sure he died about a year, 18 months after Racels died.

Will they get their £1.2 million. 306321

Fred,

Is Michael Cook alive? Did he serve the full term? It must have been terrifying for him, knowing he was innocent.

Guest Mon 22 Feb - 8:17

AnnaEsse wrote:
Beattie wrote:"Morning all,

Iv"e been browsing mailonline and they are still taking comments, so I left another one. One Poster who lived
in Portugal at the time of a girl accepting a lift in a car and being killed says the Portugese would never admit
it was one of their own. Apparently the Family were asked to pay 300,000.00 ransom which they had no hope
of paying. The Portugese Police arrested a Brit, Michael Cook, because his car was similar to the one the girl was
seen getting into. He had done some repair work for the family and would have known the family could not have paid the ransom. Anyway, he was badly beaten while in jail to force a confession out of him and he eventually
"confessed", thinking he would have his day in Court.,but no. He was sentenced to 19 yrs in prison. and the poster remarked that only the MCCanns and Murat were suspects in Madeleine"s disappearance.

I"m worn out after all this two fingered typing and just realised I could have copy and pasted.

SLIM !!!!!! there"s no flesh on them, worn to the bone.

You'll have nice slim fingers, Beattie!

**fred** Mon 22 Feb - 8:23

Beattie wrote:

Fred,

Is Michael Cook alive? Did he serve the full term? It must have been terrifying for him, knowing he was innocent.

Yes, he did time in a Portuguese prison, then was transferred to the U.K. to finish his sentence. I don't think there is much doubt really that he was guilty, it's just like the Xenophobic ex-pats blaming the PJ as like this Mccann case.

Lizzy11268 Mon 22 Feb - 8:33

I hope they don't get their 1.2 mil simply because I am sick to death of them making money off their missing daughter. I dont' actually give a crap whether they've been libelled or not.

Sponsored content

Will they get their £1.2 million.

Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.

Re: Will they get their £1.2 million.