Dr Amaral planning to sue the McCanns

by **PeterMac** 27.07.14 15:27

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707366/Former-Portuguese-policeman-sued-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-claiming-faked-abduction-planning-sue-BACK.html

Former Portuguese policeman being sued by Madeleine McCann's parents for claiming they faked her abduction is planning to sue them BACK
Goncalo Amaral accused McCanns of causing him 'enormous damage'
Writing on Facebook, he said: 'They have tried to assassinate me civilly'
The former police chief has been on trial at Lisbon's Palace of Justice
He claimed Kate and Gerry McCann faked their daughter's abduction
They say he exacerbated their anguish after Madeleine's disappearance
By LEON WATSON
UPDATED: 14:12 GMT, 27 July 2014

The former Portuguese police chief accused of libeling Madeleine McCann's parents is planning to sue them back, it emerged today.
Goncalo Amaral, who was axed from the Madeline investigation, accused Kate and Gerry McCann of causing him 'enormous damage' and the effect was 'moral, professional and financial'.
Writing on Facebook, Amaral, 55, said: 'The time to judicially react to those who put my privacy, intimacy, freedom of expression and opinion and survival at stake is approaching.

The former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral arrives at the courthouse for the trial in which he is accused of libel by the British couple Gerry and Kate McCann

Kate McCann (left) and her husband Gerry McCann (right), parents of missing British youngster Madeleine McCann, talk to the press after delivering statements at the court house
'They have tried to assassinate me civilly. But due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.'
Amaral has been on trial at Lisbon's Palace of Justice after claiming Kate and Gerry McCann faked their daughter's abduction.

'Mr Amaral said you hid Madeleine': Kate McCann reveals the moment her son asked about former Portuguese police chief¿s claims
'Stop McCann circus': Furious locals spray graffiti demanding British police investigating Madeleine's disappearance go home
875 yards from where Maddie disappeared ¿ abandoned well that police failed to search
Madeleine McCann investigators to take sniffer dogs into shop where suspect was seen with a child
Police 'will use sniffer dogs to examine the cars of two official suspects quizzed this week' in hunt for British toddler Madeleine McCann
Now he is believed to be launching a counter case against the couple claiming they breached his right to 'privacy and freedom of expression'.
Amaral made the claims in a book about their role in the disappearance of their daughter from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve in 2007.
Madeleine McCann, who disappeared on the evening of Thursday, May 3, 2007, from her bed in an apartment in Praia da Luz, a resort in the Algarve region of Portugal. She was on holiday there with her parents
The book, The Truth of the Lie, was published a year later.
Amaral also ridiculed the McCanns' claims of feeling socially isolated by pointing out they spoke in Parliament and were quizzed by TV's Oprah Winfrey, The Sun on Sunday reported today.
Madeleine disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.
The McCanns are suing for libel over claims made in Mr Amaral's 2008 book, including suggestions that they hid Madeleine's body after she died in an accident and faked an abduction.
They say the allegations damaged the hunt for their daughter and exacerbated their anguish.
Mr McCann also told the court in Lisbon that one group distributed a leaflet called 60 Reasons Why Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted to their neighbours in Leicestershire.
If successful, the family stand to gain around £1million in damages. A judgment is not expected in the trial until later this year.

by Guest 27.07.14 15:55

Note that the DM is not describing Amaral as "disgraced".

by **PeterMac** 27.07.14 16:02

Ladyinred wrote:Note that the DM is not describing Amaral as "disgraced".

Lots of things to note about that article.
1 not "disgraced"
2 Claim set out in full, with no comment
3 States that the book was published
4 Reports "ridicule" at McCanns' suggestions, and gives the full reasons
5 Reports "died in an accident" - NOT that they killed her
6 Faked an abduction - just like the case this paper reported yesterday and the day before from Scotland
7 Gives publicity to the 60 Reasons booklet, so anyone can now trawl the internet and look for it.
8 States they want 1m in damages - which is really going to please the average DM reader !

Is the worm turning ?

by nomendelta 27.07.14 16:09

Could this be a long game being played by Amaral? Get them to state stuff on oath in court and then tear it apart?

by comperedna 27.07.14 16:34

It is a pretty good article in the Mail online, IMHO. No 'disgraced cop'. Sympathetic picture of him. It explains that he is counter-suing and why..... Hmmmm

by ChippyM 27.07.14 16:45

comperedna wrote:It is a pretty good article in the Mail online, IMHO. No 'disgraced cop'. Sympathetic picture of him. It explains that he is counter-suing and why..... Hmmmm

But they are not allowing comments, maybe because they would get too many anti McCann posts and still don't feel safe from legal action? or it would just be a nightmare for their moderators.

by Cristobell 27.07.14 17:16

I feel they are trying to be nice to the McCanns, but the story gives them no leeway to make the Mcann look good. I think even their most ardent fans might start asking questions, as the article contains many facts, and 7+ years on there is no sign of this abductor the parents keep talking about.

I think the parents are now caught between a rock and a hard place. If neither police force can magic up a credible abductor, they have to be the next port of call. That's one thing the parents did get right, the world does want to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.

by Sam S 27.07.14 17:26

If the "cover-up" is as large as many people on here believe, Mr Amaral would be well advised not to drive anywhere too quickly. nah

by happychick 27.07.14 17:32

Sam S wrote:If the "cover-up" is as large as many people on here believe, Mr Amaral would be well advised not to drive anywhere too quickly.

Or buy another dog.

by HelenMeg 27.07.14 17:50

Yes - article seems, for once, to be written without bias - just presenting facts. thumbsup

by Guest 27.07.14 17:55

Three factual things that have a slight taste of different versions of truth in the article:

- He's not in court for libelling.

- Kate hasn't "revealed" that her son heard Amaral saying etc, but she's claimed it.

- Amaral might not have been ridiculing, but questioning their claims of social isolation, with the judge asking about pretty strong examples of highly socialite attention.

by comperedna 27.07.14 18:36

Loads of articles in the Mail online about the McCanns have: 'No comments allowed'. That is nothing new. Carter Ruck rules supreme. This time the comments box was merely not present. What IS new is a relatively reasoned article about the case. Often I feel the Mail online has its tongue in its cheek when speaking about the McCanns, and when it does allow comments they are at least 75% hostile to the theory of abduction, and maybe 25% merely sympathetic comments about how dreadful it is for the McCanns to lose their eldest child... which it is. The Mail is the newspaper read by working class Tories everywhere, and also by all those who find the Sun heavy going. However, the paper has run some decent campaigns in the past, and it has some quality contributors. It does have a lot of 'Two headed sheep born in Llanfyllin' or 'Pop star in minor car crash, nobody hurt', articles too.

by Guest 27.07.14 18:51

HelenMeg wrote:Yes - article seems, for once, to be written without bias - just presenting facts.

I'm not surprised, kneejerk reaction to GA's message saying he's about to take action against McCanns & others. To be followed no doubt by some "whooshing" but hopefully GA has preempted it.

I hope GA goes ahead with the press, it's the only way to get respect and to face TM & CR down.

I know it sounds cynical but it's the first time in a very long time I feel real hope.

by suzyjohnson 27.07.14 19:33

Next question 'Mum, why does Mr Amaral want to sue you and dad?'

by canada12 27.07.14 19:34

I imagine the McCanns will try and settle this one out of court too. And I doubt they'll be successful, somehow.

by jay2001 27.07.14 20:24

When the case was shelved in 2008 they could've shut up shop and looked after the twins. Their greed and lust for fame has brought them to where we are today and the twins will forever ask questions. They must see all this news and lurid headlines and as they get older it will be harder to keep them off the net etc.

They've made Dr Amaral's life hell and he's lost everything, so I hope he does sue the Mcs and the UK media. However, I don't think he's motivated by money at all ~ he just wants justice. If the Mcs truly thought they'd been libelled or damaged they could've sued for a nominal amount like £1. Hope that more people read this article and start to wake up. When they do allow comments it sickens me how many ill~informed people state how unsafe Portugal is and other inane remarks.

by canada12 27.07.14 20:45

As someone mentioned above, a civil suit against the McCanns is the way to go. Remember the OJ Simpson case. He was acquitted in the criminal trial but lost big-time financially when he was sued by Nicole's family. And the burden of proof for the civil suit was much less than for a criminal trial, at least in the US.

by Doug D 27.07.14 21:42

Browsing through the 'Sunday Sun' at the local & the story is also in there.

He's lost his 'disgraced cop' tag in there as well.

Funny that!

by suzyjohnson 27.07.14 22:05

Doug D wrote:Browsing through the 'Sunday Sun' at the local & the story is also in there.

He's lost his 'disgraced cop' tag in there as well.

Funny that!

Very good Doug D.

If Amaral takes them to court, will they have to give any evidence that anything Amaral has said was incorrect? In other words as the PJ reoprt said, demonstrate their innocence?

by ShuBob 27.07.14 22:08

jay2001 wrote:When the case was shelved in 2008 they could've shut up shop and looked after the twins. Their greed and lust for fame has brought them to where we are today and the twins will forever ask questions. They must see all this news and lurid headlines and as they get older it will be harder to keep them off the net etc.

They've made Dr Amaral's life hell and he's lost everything, so I hope he does sue the Mcs and the UK media. However, I don't think he's motivated by money at all ~ he just wants justice. If the Mcs truly thought they'd been libelled or damaged they could've sued for a nominal amount like £1. Hope that more people read this article and start to wake up. When they do allow comments it sickens me how many ill~informed people state how unsafe Portugal is and other inane remarks.

I suspect they felt they had to act to save face amongst their donors, high-profile friends, supporters etc. If these people genuinely believed them, how would they explain not challenging Amaral's claims in the courts especially when it looked likely his bestselling book was making it's way to the UK? The phrase "being stuck between a rock and a hard place" has never been more apt in my opinion.

by suzyjohnson 27.07.14 22:48

......... but the big irony is that now, thanks to the McCanns themselves, Amaral's book is getting a lot of publicity in the Uk

by Smokeandmirrors 27.07.14 23:22

PeterMac wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Note that the DM is not describing Amaral as "disgraced".

Lots of things to note about that article.
1 not "disgraced"
2 Claim set out in full, with no comment
3 States that the book was published
4 Reports "ridicule" at McCanns' suggestions, and gives the full reasons
5 Reports "died in an accident" - NOT that they killed her
6 Faked an abduction - just like the case this paper reported yesterday and the day before from Scotland
7 Gives publicity to the 60 Reasons booklet, so anyone can now trawl the internet and look for it.
8 States they want 1m in damages - which is really going to please the average DM reader !

Is the worm turning ?

I would venture not merely that the worm is turning, but that it might whip it's head around bearing rather sharp teeth and gnash menacingly at those chancers that have been "cocking a snook" at us all for a number of years now.