Will they get their £1.2 million.

fred wrote:

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.

Thanks Fred, well there you go....".he was probably guilty," and there was I feeling sorry for him.

Beattie wrote:

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!

A little hammer, Beattie, and you could make a fortune on the finger xylophone! Danse Macabre by Camille Saint-Saëns could be your virtuoso piece!

AnnaEsse,

Actually, I know that piece of Music, have it on a CD compilation. Trouble is, I can"t read music !!!!! I"m off
down the Doc"s to see if I qualify for plastic surgery.....don"t you dare suggest where they can take the skin
from.

Trying to look at this whole matter objectively, one has to ask the question, "How would I feel if I was in Portugal, a crime was committed, I became chief suspect, and when they couldn't gather sufficient information to charge me, the police released some of the files in which they drew the conclusion that I had done it, and then one of their number wrote a book implicating me in the same way." My answer is that I'd be outraged and I'd fight to the bitter end to put a stop to it, and who wouldn't?

I'm not known to be a fan of the McCanns, but nonetheless I'm not happy with what has happened in this case. The system of allowing public access to the files was introduced in Portugal to guarantee transparency in the actions of the police, and ensure their accountability to the people, because for decades under a dictatorship the police had operated as the secret extended arm of of a dictatorship to keep the people subjugated. It was not introduced to publicly implicate people in crimes for which the police have been unable to establish sufficient evidence to charge them. IMO release of the files implicating the parents in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann is a clear abuse of the intended use of the relevant provisions of the Portuguese constitution. and because it implicates them without allowing recourse to trial in a court of law, a clear abuse of their human rights.

T4two wrote:Trying to look at this whole matter objectively, one has to ask the question, "How would I feel if I was in Portugal, a crime was committed, I became chief suspect, and when they couldn't gather sufficient information to charge me, the police released some of the files in which they drew the conclusion that I had done it, and then one of their number wrote a book implicating me in the same way." My answer is that I'd be outraged and I'd fight to the bitter end to put a stop to it, and who wouldn't?

that is one way of looking at it.

T4two wrote:Trying to look at this whole matter objectively, one has to ask the question, "How would I feel if I was in Portugal, a crime was committed, I became chief suspect, and when they couldn't gather sufficient information to charge me, the police released some of the files in which they drew the conclusion that I had done it, and then one of their number wrote a book implicating me in the same way." My answer is that I'd be outraged and I'd fight to the bitter end to put a stop to it, and who wouldn't?

I'm not known to be a fan of the McCanns, but nonetheless I'm not happy with what has happened in this case. The system of allowing public access to the files was introduced in Portugal to guarantee transparency in the actions of the police, and ensure their accountability to the people, because for decades under a dictatorship the police had operated as the secret extended arm of of a dictatorship to keep the people subjugated. It was not introduced to publicly implicate people in crimes for which the police have been unable to establish sufficient evidence to charge them. IMO release of the files implicating the parents in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann is a clear abuse of the intended use of the relevant provisions of the Portuguese constitution. and because it implicates them without allowing recourse to trial in a court of law, a clear abuse of their human rights.

Can agree in Principle, however they are unlikely to be able to clear themselves full stop if they don't answer questions and run back to the UK to hide at the drop of a hat.

They ran back to England faster than Clarke Kent on acid as soon as they were made Arguido.

48 questions remain unanswered.

A reconstruction has never been achieved.

This from the Parents who would "Never leave Portugal" until their daughter was found. Now obviously, I didnt expect them still to be there 3 years later, but you have to admit, the timing of their leaving suggests fear for themselves rather than any concern for Madeleine.

And lets face it, they ARE getting their day in court. Unfortunately I don't think its done them any favours. Rather than clear them, its just made things murkier.

Now, not only was the PJ suspicious, but one our own top profilers suggested investigating the family because "Discrepancies in the statements of Gerry Mccann may suggest a homicide" and that the parents were behaving in a way "consistent with covering something up" - Note: I paraphrase, that wasnt it exactly.

THAT file (the profiler) was an unknown quantity until THEY decided they had been libelled. As it turns out, the PJ had reasons for their suspicions, as did Sr Amaral.

So although, as I say, I agree in principle with what you say. In this specific case, the majority of problems Kate and Gerry are facing, are of their own making.

Lizzy

The right to trial by jury is an inalienable right. You cannot choose to take this right away from someone based upon your subjective view of their behaviour.

T4two wrote: Lizzy

The right to trial by jury is an inalienable right. You cannot choose to take this right away from someone based upon your subjective view of their behaviour.

Yes, but neither can you take a person to trial without proper evidence.

They themselves have halted the search for evidence. Not only to clear themselves, but to perhaps make things clearer so the Police can find the right direction to go in.

All they do is criticise other people for the lack of movement in the case. I'm not saying the Police were perfect, by any means.

And I'm not sure how the files have taken away their right to a trial by jury. If they are arrested they get that right. They havent been arrested, nor has anyone else.

And lets remember shall we - THEY petitioned to get the files released. They were NOT released as a matter of course. The ONLY reason they are in the public eye now is because the Mccann's went to court because they said they wanted all the information in those files. Maybe they didnt realise that a release of the files meant a general release, not just a release for their eyes only. But thats not the fault of the PJ thats the fault of whoever advised them.

They asked for it. Now they've got it.

T4two wrote: Lizzy

The right to trial by jury is an inalienable right. You cannot choose to take this right away from someone based upon your subjective view of their behaviour.

T4two

You raise very valid points but because the case has been shelved the Judiciary had to release the Files, with
a Report suggesting 4 theories on what happened to Madeleine. I think they shelved the case because they were
annoyed that the McCanns had gone to the High Court to get the LP Files released. Since this was essentially
a Portugese investigation, I"m not sure the High Court had the right to make such a demand. Whether the
McCanns are guilty of any crime or not, they certainly did nothing to endeasr themselves to the Portugese
Police. Having Madeleine"s colombara spread around the World against the advice of the Police, engaging
Metodo 3 when a secondary investigation is not allowed in Portugal, refusing to attend a recon, Kate refusing
to answer questions etc, ......not very helpful methinks.

Yes, Indeed Beattie.

The right to trial is an inalienable right based on Magna Carta, is an inalienable right guaranteed by the American constitution, is an inalienable right guaranteed by United Nations human rights legislation. Inalienable means just that - it is not negotiable, cannot be taken away for bad behaviour. The right to trial within the meaning of human rights, does not mean trial by the Daily Express, The Sun newspaper, Correio da Manhã, TV1, the BBC, Sky News, Joana Morais, this forum or Dr. Amaral. If the constitution of Portugal allows it, then in this respect the constitution of Portugal is in contravention of human rights legislation, and it is the constitution of Portugal which must be changed. I guarantee that if Dr. Amaral takes this to the European court he will lose.

T4two wrote:The right to trial is an inalienable right based on Magna Carta, is an inalienable right guaranteed by the American constitution, is an inalienable right guaranteed by United Nations human rights legislation. Inalienable means just that - it is not negotiable, cannot be taken away for bad behaviour. The right to trial within the meaning of human rights, does not mean trial by the Daily Express, The Sun newspaper, Correio da Manhã, TV1, the BBC, Sky News, Joana Morais, this forum or Dr. Amaral. If the constitution of Portugal allows it, then in this respect the constitution of Portugal is in contravention of human rights legislation, and it is the constitution of Portugal which must be changed. I guarantee that if Dr. Amaral takes this to the European court he will lose.

Lol, yes. But they don't get a right to Trial unless they are arrested! The right to a Trial By Jury comes when you are accused of a crime.

If what you are saying is true - they should ask to be tried by a Jury under their rights if they are that worried about it. But they won't. They should ask for a JURY to review THE POLICE FILES and come to a conclusion then. But they won't.

They asked for the files to be released and therefore the files were released. If they didnt want the files released they shouldnt have asked for the files to be released. Its not as if, once the PJ had been told to release the files, they had to go through and remove anything that might implicat the Mccanns in case their "rights" were in jeopardy. Thats ridiculous!

Whats sauce for the goose and all that....

The archived files would NOT HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED.
It was a HIGH COURT that got them released at the behest of the Mccann's.

They can hardly complain now.
And their "rights" have not been affected in any way. IF they were accused they would still have all the rights you mention. And a lot more.

Frankly, its a good job for them they were in Portugal.

In this country, the caution reads "It may affect your defense, if you do not mention when questioned, that which you later rely on in court". So Kate not answering her 48 questions may well (I speculate of course) have lead to her being arrested. THEN she would have had the right to a Trial by Jury.

In Portugal, it is not allowed to be held against them that they did not answer.
Being "arguido" gives you more protection than just being a "witness"

They're unlikely to get that high a settlement as Portuguese libel courts don't award such huge amounts.
Perhaps a nominal 40 euros, with the provision that it's held in abeyance towards babysitting costs for their next European holiday?

Lizzy11268 wrote:

T4two wrote:The right to trial is an inalienable right based on Magna Carta, is an inalienable right guaranteed by the American constitution, is an inalienable right guaranteed by United Nations human rights legislation. Inalienable means just that - it is not negotiable, cannot be taken away for bad behaviour. The right to trial within the meaning of human rights, does not mean trial by the Daily Express, The Sun newspaper, Correio da Manhã, TV1, the BBC, Sky News, Joana Morais, this forum or Dr. Amaral. If the constitution of Portugal allows it, then in this respect the constitution of Portugal is in contravention of human rights legislation, and it is the constitution of Portugal which must be changed. I guarantee that if Dr. Amaral takes this to the European court he will lose.

Lol, yes. But they don't get a right to Trial unless they are arrested! The right to a Trial By Jury comes when you are accused of a crime.

If what you are saying is true - they should ask to be tried by a Jury under their rights if they are that worried about it. But they won't. They should ask for a JURY to review THE POLICE FILES and come to a conclusion then. But they won't.

They asked for the files to be released and therefore the files were released. If they didnt want the files released they shouldnt have asked for the files to be released. Its not as if, once the PJ had been told to release the files, they had to go through and remove anything that might implicat the Mccanns in case their "rights" were in jeopardy. Thats ridiculous!

Whats sauce for the goose and all that....

The archived files would NOT HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED.
It was a HIGH COURT that got them released at the behest of the Mccann's.

They can hardly complain now.
And their "rights" have not been affected in any way. IF they were accused they would still have all the rights you mention. And a lot more.

Frankly, its a good job for them they were in Portugal.

In this country, the caution reads "It may affect your defense, if you do not mention when questioned, that which you later rely on in court". So Kate not answering her 48 questions may well (I speculate of course) have lead to her being arrested. THEN she would have had the right to a Trial by Jury.

In Portugal, it is not allowed to be held against them that they did not answer.
Being "arguido" gives you more protection than just being a "witness"

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether anyone is arrested. Releasing information or writing something which implicates someone in a crime for which there is insufficient evidence to take them to trial is clearly libellous. For a state institution to do it is clearly contraveneing human rights legislation. To put it in simplified terms, if there is insufficient evidence to try someone suspected of a crime it is libellous to publicly implicate them in that crime.

But T42, I understand that. However they asked for it to be released. You don't seem to get that the files were not released because of some rule in Portugal that says they have to be. They were released because the Mccann's went to court to force their release when the case was shelved. So, whatever their rights were, they themselves have put them aside.

They didnt ask to be allowed to view them privately, as far as I can remember, nor did they ask for any specific pieces - IE only sightings of Madeleine. They asked for the lot. They ASKED for them to be released.

Are you saying that the High Court was wrong? That the court should have said "no, you can't have the files YOU YOURSELF are asking for, because it would affect your rights?"

The only thing you could perhaps say, is they didnt realise at the time the files would be on general release rather than just to their representatives.

In which case, they could have gone back to court. But they didnt.

They gave up their own rights. No-one took it away from them.

Lizzy11268 wrote:But T42, I understand that. However they asked for it to be released. You don't seem to get that the files were not released because of some rule in Portugal that says they have to be. They were released because the Mccann's went to court to force their release when the case was shelved. So, whatever their rights were, they themselves have put them aside.

They didnt ask to be allowed to view them privately, as far as I can remember, nor did they ask for any specific pieces - IE only sightings of Madeleine. They asked for the lot. They ASKED for them to be released.

Are you saying that the High Court was wrong? That the court should have said "no, you can't have the files YOU YOURSELF are asking for, because it would affect your rights?"

The only thing you could perhaps say, is they didnt realise at the time the files would be on general release rather than just to their representatives.

In which case, they could have gone back to court. But they didnt.

They gave up their own rights. No-one took it away from them.

I'm sorry but saying that the files were released because the McCanns wanted them to be released is simply not true.

T4two wrote:

Lizzy11268 wrote:But T42, I understand that. However they asked for it to be released. You don't seem to get that the files were not released because of some rule in Portugal that says they have to be. They were released because the Mccann's went to court to force their release when the case was shelved. So, whatever their rights were, they themselves have put them aside.

They didnt ask to be allowed to view them privately, as far as I can remember, nor did they ask for any specific pieces - IE only sightings of Madeleine. They asked for the lot. They ASKED for them to be released.

Are you saying that the High Court was wrong? That the court should have said "no, you can't have the files YOU YOURSELF are asking for, because it would affect your rights?"

The only thing you could perhaps say, is they didnt realise at the time the files would be on general release rather than just to their representatives.

In which case, they could have gone back to court. But they didnt.

They gave up their own rights. No-one took it away from them.

I'm sorry but saying that the files were released because the McCanns wanted them to be released is simply not true.

Ok then, what you say is fair enough.

I will be interested to see what the Human Rights court have to say about it.

Edit to add: I may be getting confused with the portugese files and the case to get the Leicester police to open theirs (which I believe has never happened) so if I am wrong, I apologise.

I would still ask though, if what you say is true, why are they not suing the Portugese authorities?

Lizzy11268 wrote:

T4two wrote:

Lizzy11268 wrote:But T42, I understand that. However they asked for it to be released. You don't seem to get that the files were not released because of some rule in Portugal that says they have to be. They were released because the Mccann's went to court to force their release when the case was shelved. So, whatever their rights were, they themselves have put them aside.

They didnt ask to be allowed to view them privately, as far as I can remember, nor did they ask for any specific pieces - IE only sightings of Madeleine. They asked for the lot. They ASKED for them to be released.

Are you saying that the High Court was wrong? That the court should have said "no, you can't have the files YOU YOURSELF are asking for, because it would affect your rights?"

The only thing you could perhaps say, is they didnt realise at the time the files would be on general release rather than just to their representatives.

In which case, they could have gone back to court. But they didnt.

They gave up their own rights. No-one took it away from them.

I'm sorry but saying that the files were released because the McCanns wanted them to be released is simply not true.

Ok then, what you say is fair enough.

I will be interested to see what the Human Rights court have to say about it.

Edit to add: I may be getting confused with the portugese files and the case to get the Leicester police to open theirs (which I believe has never happened) so if I am wrong, I apologise.

I would still ask though, if what you say is true, why are they not suing the Portugese authorities?

Hi Lizzy

First of all, it's a discussion - no quarter given but, no apologies necessary As far as suing the Portuguese authorities is concerned, that would be the next logical step once the present case has been heard and even better, if a ruling by the European court has been obtained. Btw this has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of damages they could be awarded against Dr. Amaral and his publishers. It's quite possible to reach a verdict which awards them only a derogatory amount of say, 1Euro 20 Cents rather than the 1.2 million they are seeking.

I too find it difficult to say that the European courts will agree with Mr Amaral. But I think the point is this. If it is uncertain as to what happened to Madelieine. Now I l think if there is doubt then the public have a right to know that. I don't think it is fair that one side should be allowed to gag the other side and say their version is the truth and anything else is a lie and must be supressed. That is what I think is at stake. Not who is right or wrong.

Thanks T4two.

I think that if they get awarded the 1.2 mil, its possible that this would signal the end of any co-operation between the Portugese people, in who's eyes they are not the greatest anyway, and The Mccann's. I think anecdotal evidence suggests that they are simply fed up with the sight of them.

Both parties are fighting to the finish on this one though it seems.

I have to say, I would prefer any damages awarded were directed (by the judge) to charities for missing children. And that both sides have to pay their own costs.

Because, frankly, I feel enough people have made enough money on the back of the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann.

MaryB wrote:I too find it difficult to say that the European courts will agree with Mr Amaral. But I think the point is this. If it is uncertain as to what happened to Madelieine. Now I l think if there is doubt then the public have a right to know that. I don't think it is fair that one side should be allowed to gag the other side and say their version is the truth and anything else is a lie and must be supressed. That is what I think is at stake. Not who is right or wrong.

Yes, I agree. Well said.

Can someone direct me to the chapter of the book where Amaral accuses the McCanns of committing a crime? I cannot find it anywhere. I have seen him repeat the conclusions (opinions) of the investigation which include simulating an abduction and hiding a cadaver, but nowhere does he implicate the McCanns of committing any crime. The case files have been made public, how can stating factually the findings of the case be considered libel?

jinvta wrote:Can someone direct me to the chapter of the book where Amaral accuses the McCanns of committing a crime? I cannot find it anywhere. I have seen him repeat the conclusions (opinions) of the investigation which include simulating an abduction and hiding a cadaver, but nowhere does he implicate the McCanns of committing any crime. The case files have been made public, how can stating factually the findings of the case be considered libel?

As I say, I havn"t read all the book, but he does suggest that Madeleine died in 5a, accidentally and that her
body was hidden, presumably by the Mcanns. Try the DVD, it"s probably on there because I remember two
Police Officers showing a shelf in a Wardrobe where the dogs sniffed blood.

jinvta wrote:Can someone direct me to the chapter of the book where Amaral accuses the McCanns of committing a crime? I cannot find it anywhere. I have seen him repeat the conclusions (opinions) of the investigation which include simulating an abduction and hiding a cadaver, but nowhere does he implicate the McCanns of committing any crime. The case files have been made public, how can stating factually the findings of the case be considered libel?

It seems to be, when it comes to the Libel trial as opposed to anything else, the sticky point is that Amaral says he thinks they hid the cadaver. The fact that he thinks Maddy died in the apartment on its own, would not be libel, because there is evidence to suggest the possibility AND it does not point the finger at anyone specific. But he does say he believes that Gerry and Kate concealed the body. If unproven that COULD be construed as libel.

That is not, I believe, in the case files. So he could lose on that point.

However, as he is not the only one who has said it, and it has appeared in other publications which have NOT been sued, and add to that the fact that the book was published months before they decided to take any action, it was widely read and sold in many countries prior to any action being taken (the action was only taken, it seems, when there was a possible publication date coming up in the UK) a case may be made that although it IS libel, it is no more damaging now than it was then. Or something like that (I'm not a lawyer, but I've talked to one! LOL ) so they are not being more "damaged". Also, the more cynical among us, will think they were waiting until he had made enough money worth sueing for

So, it really could go either way.

If Amaral can get one scrap of evidence that has not yet been heard, to explain why he thinks it was THEM specifically and not just SOMEONE that hid the body, then he may have a case. Although then, you would have thought he would already have said so.

Thats my understanding of it, anyway.

In my experience, people often tend to make wildly inflated financial claims, in the hope that any settlement will be higher than if they made a reasonable claim. Courts will accept the submission of the craziest of claims. If they where to win, it'll be hard to justify 1.2 million euro's, but crazier things have happened.

My understanding is that Portugese courts tend not to make large libel payouts, payments tend to be restricted to a few tens of thousands.

I also thought that the McCann's strategy would be a) seek temporary injunction in Portugal, b) libel trial in portugal, c) permenant injunction against the book in uk, using the portugese decision as a precedant, d) libel trial in UK on the basis that they'd certainly win, and the potential payout will be worth the risk.

A libel solicitor was discussing this ridiculous case of the scientist whose being sued by the British association of Chiropractors for an article he wrote in the Guardian, and he made the comment that in the UK a brain dead corpse could represent clients in a libel trial, and win. He quoted win rates of over 98% of the cases that result in a trial, its almost impossible to lose, and these charges are almost impossible to defend.

They may be having second thoughts about their strategy given the negative press attention that they recieved in Portugal, they also know, that if a similar event was to occur in the UK, that the situation could be much woorse, but these feelings will pass. Its a high stakes poker game, and unfortunately at this moment, Amaral is the weakest player at the table, simply because he has limited financial support. A positive result against Amaral would be a very useful tool in their continued fight, because at some point, a bigger and stronger opponent is going to come along, a previous court ruling would be an extremely useful card to be able to play.

The McCann's biggest fear must be that a major newspaper group starts publishing information that they undoubtadly have. If the McCann's wont take action to silence Amaral, then this sends out a signal to the newspapers that the McCann's are unlikely to put up a fight against their superior fire power. At the point, the games over.

No way will they recieve 1.2 million from a Portugese court, but before this thing is resolved, they may well see a British court awarding damages of that magnitude in their favour. It may seam unfair, but I suspect as a consequence Dr Amaral will finally earn 10 times the amount he loses.