Re: Appeal in favour of Gonçalo Amaral

by plebgate 21.04.16 18:59

Has there been a reaction from Missing People Charity on their website?

by Realist 21.04.16 19:05

pennylane wrote:

I don't think so and where does negligence enter into the equation. I think its already been established that the Portuguese authorities are far more relaxed on leaving children unattended than in the US and UK. Where's the evidence of sedation, they didn't even bother testing the remaining children. I think the negligence factor was more emphasised by the McCanns than the investigating authorities, if you think about it, there had to be an element of negligence for an abduction to have occurred. No negligence, no abduction. Even if there were elements of sedation involved, it would have only amounted to small amounts of innocuous drugs, after all, they'd hardly have been lacing them up with diamorphine, would they now.

If the death were deemed accidental, they wouldn't have suffered any legal repercussions. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unintentional,' is this a euphemism for 'manslaughter.' Of course an autopsy would have caused them problems, not due to the death being accidental, but due to the fact that it wasn't accidental, that's why they felt the need to dispose of the body and concoct the kidnapping scam.

This I totally agree with. In the event of what transpired not being accidental, they would have lost everything, that's why they gambled with disposing of the body etc. As far as they were concerned, they had nothing to lose by adopting this gambit. Fortunately for them, their luck held and the Portuguese police unbelievably, initially gave them the benefit of the doubt. I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al. Its far more likely that Madeleine died from a good ole fashioned whack from either Gerry or Kate McCann which would have been determined by an autopsy.

Now there may well be the odd sympathetic coroner prepared to rule the aforementioned as being accidental, but there would be a school of thought who would subscribe to the fact that most would rule it manslaughter, culminating in them losing everything, including their other children. The stakes were indeed high and anyone believing that they enlisted comparative strangers to assist in the disposal of the body etc must still believe in Father Christmas.

by whodunit 21.04.16 19:20

It is unclear who said this: "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children, and as people in the UK especially have seen, members of the Establishment are not only involved with pedo 'rings' [which is a somewhat innocuous and throroughly diverting euphemism for a thriving criminal underworld concerned with making HUGE PROFITS off child victimization] they are all about covering their tracks by any means necessary.

by MayMuse 21.04.16 19:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
MayMuse wrote:@Tony Bennett >>> What may I ask would be the " legal arguments" that their lawyer could present should they counter-sue; surely all legal arguments were considered and presented for this trial (and the previous). Not seeing how the McCanns can move forwards with this, unless I'm missing something? Plus would they not have to clear the decks so to speak and pay up 'costs' AND release Amarals "property" etc before anything could be put in motion?

Otherwise this will just go on and on - and on and on - a bit like the Met!

In my opinion it's 'fruitless'...
@ MayMuse

1. With reference to the McCanns' appeal to the Supreme Court, the McCanns did this before. They lost in the Portuguese Court of Appeal on October 2010 and appealed. But the Supreme Court in May 2011 confirmed exactly what the Appeal Court said - and both courts, even back then, ordered the McCanns to pay all the costs. The Supreme Court is surely likely to reach the same verdict again - unless the British government can somehow exert political pressure (once again) to achieve the 'right' result.

2. Banning Goncalo Amaral's book in Britain? Quote from the Mirror:

Madeleine McCann’s parents have warned anyone caught selling ex-police chief Gonzalo Amaral's book in the UK would face legal action. A spokesman for the couple warned anyone caught selling the book in the UK would face legal action.

REPLY: The judgment in Portugal only applies in Portugal. In Britain, as I've explained elsewhere on the forum, we have some of the strictest libel laws in Europe - indeed in the world - despite our reputation for allowing 'free speech'. And they've been able to hire libel lawyers who boasted that they were 'Britain's most feared libel lawyers'. I would have thought that this is pretty academic since (a) there is no published English version of the book yet and (b) it is available in a translation by 'AnneEsse' on this forum, on the forum-owner's own blog, and in many other places on the net.

3. Amaral's claim for compensation Quote from the Mirror:

Amaral is set to demand compensation from Gerry and Kate McCann after he won a libel court case appeal. The 56-year-old claims the couple cost him money and harmed his reputation during the long-running legal battle. Portuguese legal sources say the compensation bill could run into the “hundreds of thousands of Euros”. The ex-officer’s lawyer Miguel Cruz Rodrigues announced plans to sue the McCanns just hours after the surprise libel U-turn. He said: “We are going to advance with a compensation claim against the McCanns. My client has suffered years of prejudice and losses.” Mr Rodrigues added Amaral has suffered “years of financial losses in which his good name has been called into question.”

REPLY: I wonder if this might just be understandable 'sabre-rattling' by Goncalo Amaral's legal team? He would have formidable difficulties, I fear, in claiming compensation, because the facts are so wildly in dispute. Did the dogs 'prove' there was a corpse in Apartment G5A? - or not? Everything surely turns on that. Surely Amaral would have to prove that Madeleine died, prove that the McCanns arranged to hide her body, and prove that they have lied to cover this up. It would still be a formidable task - unless he is sitting on evidence which he has not yet disclosed. Also, where does he sue? Portugal? Or England?

Thank you @Tony Bennett for the in depth reply, seems the McCanns maybe in a sticky wicket to counter- sue and I do hope that the good man Amaral sues the pants of all those who have tried to persecute him! IMHO I don't think for one minute the McCanns will try again, it would be like world wide 'suicide'. Thanks also to those who took the time to read and had a little giggle at my 'monitor' post! Surprising what thoughts pop in your head at 3 am Wink

by pendragon2007 21.04.16 19:26

Tony Bennett wrote
             "@skyrocket wrote:
               @TB - Haha! Indeed!
Getting personal, which I avoid doing normally but as it's only old CM...he's got rather rotund - bit too much of the good life I reckon. In the Aus clips he reminded me of an old bantam cockerel
a friend used to own. It used to strut backwards and forwards with its chest puffed out - its self-importance far outweighing its size. It used to hide behind items in the garden and attack your ankles.
Now you come to mention it, there is more than a passing resemblance! >>>
I always thought he was rather too 'cocksure'

This must have been filmed after the news broke regarding Goncalo Amaral's success. CM performing true to character - but Kate M looks a little chicken - don't you think?
.

by pennylane 21.04.16 19:42

Realist wrote:
pennylane wrote:

I don't think so and where does negligence enter into the equation. I think its already been established that the Portuguese authorities are far more relaxed on leaving children unattended than in the US and UK. Where's the evidence of sedation, they didn't even bother testing the remaining children. I think the negligence factor was more emphasised by the McCanns than the investigating authorities, if you think about it, there had to be an element of negligence for an abduction to have occurred. No negligence, no abduction. Even if there were elements of sedation involved, it would have only amounted to small amounts of innocuous drugs, after all, they'd hardly have been lacing them up with diamorphine, would they now.

If the death were deemed accidental, they wouldn't have suffered any legal repercussions. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unintentional,' is this a euphemism for 'manslaughter.' Of course an autopsy would have caused them problems, not due to the death being accidental, but due to the fact that it wasn't accidental, that's why they felt the need to dispose of the body and concoct the kidnapping scam.

This I totally agree with. In the event of what transpired not being accidental, they would have lost everything, that's why they gambled with disposing of the body etc. As far as they were concerned, they had nothing to lose by adopting this gambit. Fortunately for them, their luck held and the Portuguese police unbelievably, initially gave them the benefit of the doubt. I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al. Its far more likely that Madeleine died from a good ole fashioned whack from either Gerry or Kate McCann which would have been determined by an autopsy.

Now there may well be the odd sympathetic coroner prepared to rule the aforementioned as being accidental, but there would be a school of thought who would subscribe to the fact that most would rule it manslaughter, culminating in them losing everything, including their other children. The stakes were indeed high and anyone believing that they enlisted comparative strangers to assist in the disposal of the body etc must still believe in Father Christmas.

Sorry realist, are you saying three toddlers left sedated and alone by their doctor parents so they can have some 'me time' with mates, and one of those toddlers falls to her death in a drugged state, or asphyxiates on vomit, or has heart failure (pick a dangerous scenario as there are many), this does not equate legally to neglect/negligent homicide?

by Realist 21.04.16 19:44

whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this: "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'

And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children,

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.

by Realist 21.04.16 19:50

pennylane wrote:

Firstly, there is no evidence of sedation and even if there were, it wouldn't legally equate to homicide. I'm presuming from your use of the word 'homicide' that you are an American citizen.

by pennylane 21.04.16 19:50

lol realist, you're mixing the quotes big grin

by Realist 21.04.16 19:52

pennylane wrote:lol realist, you're mixing the quotes

I know, but every time I reply to you, your writing doesn't appear. Perhaps you are an apparition big grin

by pennylane 21.04.16 19:53

Realist wrote:
pennylane wrote:lol realist, you're mixing the quotes
I know, but every time I reply to you, your writing doesn't appear. Perhaps you are an apparition

I do feel a bit apparitious sometimes big grin

by pennylane 21.04.16 19:54

I think we have gone way off topic, realist, and may get our knuckles rapped shortly.

by whodunit 21.04.16 20:00

Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this: "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'

And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children,

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.

1. You said 'we' can safely dispense with these theories. You are not allowed to speak for all of us. As long as the Gaspar statements exist nobody is going to 'dispense with' these theories not matter how much you dismissively wave your hands around.

2. My main point was you were derisively lumping pedophile theories in with 'aliens from mars' as if pedophiles do not exist and as if any theories regarding them are 'wild'. You were attempting to discredit these theories by painting them with the 'conspiracy theory' brush, a well known tactic...

As for the Gaspars, they may have dropped the ball insofar as reporting the incident at the time but it took a lot of guts to come forward with information like that, at that time in the midst of world-wide pro McCann media coverage. Their information WAS NOT passed on to the PJ before the case was shelved so they had no way of taking it into account in their investigation. As we know from the UK authorities kid glove handling of Jimmy Savile police authorities not giving credence to witness statements is no measure of it's credibility, and you using the lack of interest from police to dismiss it is an appeal to authority I'm never prepared to go along with.

by Guest 21.04.16 20:02

Can we stay on topic, please.

by whodunit 21.04.16 20:03

Ladyinred wrote:Can we stay on topic, please.

I'm sorry. No more from me.

by Guest 21.04.16 20:06

whodunit wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Can we stay on topic, please.

I'm sorry. No more from me.

No probs. Start a new topic, or use search facility to continue your discussion.

by Realist 21.04.16 20:20

whodunit wrote:

1. You said 'we' can safely dispense with these theories. You are not allowed to speak for all of us. As long as the Gaspar statements exist nobody is going to 'dispense with' these theories not matter how much you dismissively wave your hands around.

You do appear to have some weird expressions, 'waving my hands around' when actually, one of my hands is holding a cigarette and t'uther is typing, (I'm a one finger typist)

2. My main point was you were derisively lumping pedophile theories in with 'aliens from mars' as if pedophiles do not exist and as if any theories regarding them are 'wild'. You were attempting to discredit these theories by painting them with the 'conspiracy theory' brush, a well known tactic...

Again, you appear to be misinterpreting my statements, I never stated that paedophiles didn't exist, what I stated, or intimated, was that there is no tangible evidence of them existing in the McCann's case, other than that of the spurious variety from the McCanns themselves.

As for the Gaspars, they may have dropped the ball insofar as reporting the incident at the time but it took a lot of guts to come forward with information like that, at that time in the midst of world-wide pro McCann media coverage. Their information WAS NOT passed on to the PJ before the case was shelved so they had no way of taking it into account in their investigation. As we know from the UK authorities kid glove handling of Jimmy Savile police authorities not giving credence to witness statements is no measure of it's credibility, and you using the lack of interest from police to dismiss it is an appeal to authority I'm never prepared to go along with.

I think you will find and I stand to be corrected, that at the time the Gaspars finally declared their revelations, the media were in their crucifying the McCann mode prior to be gagged by their lawyers.

NB, I've just read your missive, Ladyinred, I'll now desist

by aiyoyo 21.04.16 20:23

jeanmonroe wrote:Madeleine McCann’s parents threaten legal action on people caught selling Gonzalo Amaral's book in UK.
-----------------------

And if 'people' bulk buy and give the books away, gratis, what then?

Poor Pamela G is gonna be a bizzy bee, having to 'check out' all those ......car boot sales!

I'm sure they are not targeting individual/s selling the odd units of book. It makes no sense to target individual/s since there is no money to be made from small fries, so not worth going after small fries.
Besides small volume sale cannot do great harm therefore cannot justify taking it to court.

They are after big entity - publisher or big chain store. Because there is big money in it but also big risk for them because big entity has deeper pocket than them and equally if not better lawyers than them.
But if it comes to that (ie big entity selling it) one would conclude the big entity would have made the decision on informed choice, having judged the pros outweighs the cons and carefully deliberated their risk before taking the decision to sell the book. So it if comes to that, the Mcs themselves would be wary of enforcing their threat in case it backfires big time, a repeat of Portugal.

I don't think it will come to that because public interest in the Mcs case is waning. Big entity taking a decision to sell the book would be profit minded and if there isn't interest to attract volume they won't bother.

The Mc's threat to sue and suppress the book in the UK is but a defiance retaliation to Dr Amaral victory more than anything else. They must realise their appeal has the real possibility of being thrown out at cursory stage and they are just being recalcitrance about it.

by Realist 21.04.16 20:37

aiyoyo wrote:

The Mc's threat to sue and suppress the book in the UK is but a defiance retaliation to Dr Amaral victory more than anything else. They must realise their appeal has the real possibility of being thrown out at cursory stage and they are just being recalcitrance about it.

I really can't see the point in them adopting this stance, aiyoyo, surely, this will open the door to the 'methinks you doth protest too much' brigade. Again, they appear to be suffering from poor legal advice.

Either that, or lawyers working in their own interests, as opposed to their client.

by JohnyT 21.04.16 21:30

Pyewacket wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Thank you for the link. I've just watched it and it amazes me how Richard is so on the ball with his videos!

A tad worried about Clarence, his blood pressure must be through the ~~internet~~ roof?

He certainly can talk the talk, wonder if he gives "presentations" to the "team" which monitors the Internet?
Strange he admits that they have them in place? Questions I would like to hear him answer;

"Why the need for those 'monitors'?
"What is their exact role as a monitor"?
"Whose idea was it to introduce "monitoring"?
"When, where & how did they recruit these 'monitors'"?
"Do they undergo any training"?
"What is the expected outcome for such monitoring"?
"Who does the "monitoring team" report to"?
"Does any remuneration to a 'monitoring team member' exchange hands & if so who funds this"?
"What exactly are they monitoring"?
"Is there any prerequisite to become a 'monitor'"?
"Do 'monitors' have to comply with a certain criteria"?
"When the 'monitors' have 'monitored' said Internet, where is this information shared/stored"?
"Do they comply with data-protection laws"?
"Are the 'monitors' monitored"?
"Did they expect to find Madeleine through 'monitoring'"?
"How does he sleep at night"?

I'm sure I could think of a few more, pity I would have liked to have been in the audience!
That's brilliant, and made me laugh. My favourite has to be; Are the "Moniters" monitored ? Cheers.

.......but who monitors the monitors that monitor the monitors............?
JohnyT

by Verdi 21.04.16 21:35

@JohnyT wrote: ......but who monitors the monitors that monitor the monitors............?

Why, the monitor - naturally! The office of circumlocution.

by aiyoyo 21.04.16 22:50

Realist wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:

The Mc's threat to sue and suppress the book in the UK is but a defiance retaliation to Dr Amaral victory more than anything else. They must realise their appeal has the real possibility of being thrown out at cursory stage and they are just being recalcitrance about it.

I really can't see the point in them adopting this stance, aiyoyo, surely, this will open the door to the 'methinks you doth protest too much' brigade. Again, they appear to be suffering from poor legal advice.

Either that, or lawyers working in their own interests, as opposed to their client.

Mc's threat to sue anyone caught selling the book in UK is just a shot across the bow at Amaral in case his english version book bound to come out soon post the victory verdict is targeting UK market.
They realise very well the book will be translated and published in English, it's only a question of time before that happens. It's a guaranty in fact and they want to get on the defensive first - that's very typical of their style.

They are adopting that stance partly from their arrogance, partly refusal to admit defeat (heads in sand) and partly from poor advice from their lawyer.
ID will file the appeal regardless it be allowed or not because she also cannot concede defeat.
Not filing would mean conceding defeat, filing would incur costs for clients, wasting clients money, but the former must take precedence as clients money is least of her concerns.
She is between a rock and a very hard place.
Defeat looks bad on her not only for obvious reason but also because she had advised her clients badly from the get go. ( When the three judges in first instance appeals court overturned the book injunction the writing was already on the wall, she should have advised her clients to withdraw, unless it was impossible to withdraw otherwise the case would be seen as bad faith filing ie vexatious and malicious bearing serious repercussion for her clients. Remember the Mcs caved in and tried to seek out of court settlement? They must have an inevitable reason for doing that, as it's unheard of for plaintiffs to ask for out of court settlement.)

ID has proven (in last appeal) to go against "not appealable" recommendation, as well as proven she's very capable of using unorthodox legal angle to submit appeal if she can get away with it, unless the judgement expressly forbids them to appeal.
Going by the indications from both sides, it would appear there is no prohibition on them not to appeal and they have a 30 days deadline to file (apparently). But it has also been said an appeal to Supreme Court principally is on points of law thus their appeal may not be entertained since it stands practically no chance of success. In other words, the Appeals court verdict is pretty much set in stone.

ID's interest is intertwined with that of her clients. She's been known to take on clients interest very personally not distinguishing between personal and professionalism. But I suspect when the chips are down her personal interest would take precedence.

by MayMuse 21.04.16 23:18

Verdi wrote:@JohnyT wrote: ......but who monitors the monitors that monitor the monitors............?

Why, the monitor - naturally! The office of circumlocution.

Ha Ha Ha indeed! lol!