Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

by Guest 27.01.13 9:06

I can in all seriousness see a similarity in the behaviour of people blinded by religious fervour and who believe everything they are told - no matter how silly that might be - to that displayed by an element of McCann supporters. Perhaps we can call them devout McCannists.......

Bob: if you have a strong stomach, you might want to check out the site JATYK2 which makes the members of Stop the Myths look like reasonable people. Get ready to disinfect yourself and your computer afterwards!

by **PeterMac** 27.01.13 9:48

Montclair wrote:
Why do you continue to say you don't know when I have just told you that the McCanns asked for the suspension. That is an indisputable FACT! BTW TB quoted a letter from CR to him which stated the FACT that the McCanns are trying to seek a settlement. It was also mentioned on Portuguese television by Hernâni Carvalho and in an article in TVMais. What more FACTS do you need?

The reason.
The course of events.
The strategy behind it.
The terms of the settlement they are seeking.
What concessions they have made.
What demands they are making.
The legal position under Portuguese law.
The legal consequences.

We shall find out sooner or later. Arguing in upper case will not bring that day forward.

by T4two 27.01.13 9:57

It's quite right to see those peoples' behaviour as resembling blind religious fervour. Perhaps my initial post was a bit flippant in this respect. IMO building on the child's name with religious imagery such as 'virgin-like' posed photographs of the mother, photoshoots of visit to Fatima and audience with the pope to name a few, demonstrates a very clever brain behind the early marketing which appears to have influenced a number of people and continues to do so.

by Me 27.01.13 10:24

Tony

I don't think the idea of a postponement on currency variation is viable in truth.

Firstly currency is prone to wild extremes either way and no one can accurately predcit where it will be at any given time.To try and time a court case around currency fluctuations is prone with danger and ultimately futile.

I would also suggest that the priority is to win the case as quickly as you can and then decide what to do with the money after you have won it. For example if they won the case they could simply leave the money in a Euro account in Portugal and then convert it at the most advantageous time for currency exchange.
I can state with reasonable certainty that the caving in of the McCann's has absolutely nothing to do with currency.

by Bob Southgate 27.01.13 10:28

Jean wrote:I can in all seriousness see a similarity in the behaviour of people blinded by religious fervour and who believe everything they are told - no matter how silly that might be - to that displayed by an element of McCann supporters. Perhaps we can call them devout McCannists.......

Bob: if you have a strong stomach, you might want to check out the site JATYK2 which makes the members of Stop the Myths look like reasonable people. Get ready to disinfect yourself and your computer afterwards!

I think I'll give that one a miss Jean as I have some paint that I need to watch while it is drying Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 6 110921

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 6 110921

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.13 10:37

Me wrote:I can state with reasonable certainty that the caving in of the McCanns...

It is not established that the McCanns have 'caved in' in their libel trial against Dr Amaral, though there is credible evidence now that they might be in the process of caving in.

One wonders, for example, if there will be letters going to and fro: "Will you accept this?", "No", Will you accept that?", "Maybe but only if this and that", and so on and so forth.

Or possibly there will be a head-to-head meeting with coffee and biscuits/sardine sandwiches between Senora Isabel Duarte and Senor Santos e Oliveira, each on their mobile 'phones, Goncalo Amaral in a cafe reading Correia da Manha, and Drs Gerald and Kate McCann in the boardroom of Carter-Ruck's palatial offices, awaiting a call saying how the negotiations are going

by monkey mind 27.01.13 11:01

Bob Southgate wrote:
Jean wrote:I can in all seriousness see a similarity in the behaviour of people blinded by religious fervour and who believe everything they are told - no matter how silly that might be - to that displayed by an element of McCann supporters. Perhaps we can call them devout McCannists.......

Bob: if you have a strong stomach, you might want to check out the site JATYK2 which makes the members of Stop the Myths look like reasonable people. Get ready to disinfect yourself and your computer afterwards!

I think I'll give that one a miss Jean as I have some paint that I need to watch while it is drying

Bob I think I'll go watch the grass grow.

Always a good time of year for that.

by Me 27.01.13 11:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Me wrote:I can state with reasonable certainty that the caving in of the McCanns...
It is not established that the McCanns have 'caved in' in their libel trial against Dr Amaral, though there is credible evidence now that they might be in the process of caving in.

One wonders, for example, if there will be letters going to and fro: "Will you accept this?", "No", Will you accept that?", "Maybe but only if this and that", and so on and so forth.

Or possibly there will be a head-to-head meeting with coffee and biscuits/sardine sandwiches between Senora Isabel Duarte and Senor Santos e Oliveira, each on their mobile 'phones, Goncalo Amaral in a cafe reading Correia da Manha, and Drs Gerald and Kate McCann in the boardroom of Carter-Ruck's palatial offices, awaiting a call saying how the negotiations are going

Ok so do you now accept that currency is not a valid or viable reason for this negotiation?

In relation to caving in i would argue that by seeking negotiation in the first place they have indeed caved in. I think it was you yourself who said that Amaral's team were surprised to receive a letter on the 8th asking for settlement from the McCann's lawyer.

By definition if they are seeking a settlement now they will not be asking for the full amount of their claim.

Amaral's lawyer would simply say "no thanks we'll take our chances in court, there is no advantage for us in agreeing to settle on precisely the same terms as the original libel action".

He will be saying this anyway on any of the claims they now try to seek through negotiation simply because Amaral would have won the case. Their case had no merit on the back of the book banning case and the Amaral's other trial which he lost on the basis of what Marcos Aragão Correia thought was true at the time he said it. Amaral can use exactly the same defence

I know you are loathe to do so but read BS's recent posts about the case and read the arguments there as to why the case had no legs.

So in seeking a settlement they have caved in because even their best case scenario is that they will not receive anything like their original demands. If they aren't going to get their original demands met then it is a cave in by them. If they were confident of winning and Given Amaral's assets have been frozen since they launched their action costs now cannot be a factor, then they would have pressed on with their case stridently.

What is to be decided now is not whether they have caved in or not, that is not in any doubt, it is simply the scale of their defeat and what if anything they can extract in the way of concession out of Amaral.

My own belief is that they will have to ultimately concede to Amaral on all the key points. They may get one or two minor concessions but i cannot see any more than that.

Given Amaral was quite ready to go to court then i would argue he is holding the cards because he can simply say "no we'll see you in court".

And the Team will know if they do go to court and lose then Amaral's costs will be awarded against them and they would face further counter action from Amaral which will be far more publically humiliating and ultimately far more expensive than if they quietly (no news from Falcon For Men Mitchell yet - funny that) settle now and get the hell out of the case.

I do not only believe that they are seeking settlement purely on the basis of cost and chances of victory though.

It is my own personal belief, and i posted about this the other day, that they appear to be getting their wagons in a circle legally and financially. The timing of this settlement proposal so soon to news that the Yard are liaising with the PJ seems to be related.

If the Yard were concluding there had been an abduction then they would have communicated that to the parents. They would be out of the frame and they could be kept up to speed with the investigation to find the mystery abductor(s).

If that had happened that would have STRENGTHENED the parent's position in their case against Amaral and would they then have been looking to settle if their case had suddenly received validation from the review team?

I don't think so, do you?

So the only other possibility is that the Yard are coming to the same conclusions as the PJ and are going to soon go public with their findings and that a reconstruction and further questioning is required.

Is there enough money to take on Amaral and then put legal defences in place for trips back to Portugal if the PJ and the Yard declare a reconstruction and further questioning is required?

Will they want to be fighting major battles on several fronts? I do not believe they would.

With respect to you yours was a minor skirmish to them. Their real big battles were against Amaral and in the event of their doomsday scenario, a recall to Portugal for a reconstruction and further questioning.

The fight against Amaral was about suppressing the damaging evidence he presented direct from the files. Their request for settlement seems to indicate they have given up on the possibility of doing that and to me at least it indicates that their resources, from money to spin to legal expertise now seems to be aimed squarely in readiness for when the results of the review are released.

by **PeterMac** 27.01.13 11:40

Me.
Good arguments.
The chances of a reconstruction are virtually nil.
It is not a technique used in English law, (or not normally - there may be isolated examples)
and the Portuguese would have to issue a EAW to get them back if they refused to attend voluntarily.
And then of course they would be "arguido" and able to refuse to take part.
And even if they did, it would prove, beyond a peradventure, that the official story was totally impossible.

Further questioning would be very likely to result in silence.
They have powerful legal teams in both countries, who would without doubt advise them to remain silent.
Which takes us back to the start.

The only place where they could not hide behind legal advice to remain silent is in a witness box, under oath.
As in a libel trial.
Which is why they and their advisors have no option but to prevent them ever appearing in court.

by Guest 27.01.13 11:53

Yes, good points Me and Peter Mac. I do believe though that the ruling by the Judge in the libel trial of Marcos Aragoa v Goncal Amaral plays a part in this decision. Mr Amaral lost that libel case because, as Tony wrote:

[quote]Basically, the judge in that case said though what Correia said was false, he believed at the time that it was true.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5559-part-of-the-defamation-case-brought-by-dr-goncalo-amaral-that-he-lost[quote]

This ruling last year, September time I believe, has helped Goncalo Amaral greatly with his libel trial, and added another string to his bow. He can of course claim the same thing, which is what Blacksmith said in his last blog.
So whichever way you look at it, if Mr Amaral believes what he wrote to be the truth, then he must win???

by aiyoyo 27.01.13 12:00

PeterMac wrote:Me.
Good arguments.
The chances of a reconstruction are virtually nil.
It is not a technique used in English law, (or not normally - there may be isolated examples)
and the Portuguese would have to issue a EAW to get them back if they refused to attend voluntarily.
And then of course they would be "arguido" and able to refuse to take part.
And even if they did, it would prove, beyond a peradventure, that the official story was totally impossible.

Further questioning would be very likely to result in silence.
They have powerful legal teams in both countries, who would without doubt advise them to remain silent.
Which takes us back to the start.

The only place where they could not hide behind legal advice to remain silent is in a witness box, under oath.
As in a libel trial.
Which is why they and their advisors have no option but to prevent them ever appearing in court.

by Me 27.01.13 12:06

PeterMac wrote:Me.
Good arguments.
The chances of a reconstruction are virtually nil.
It is not a technique used in English law, (or not normally - there may be isolated examples)
and the Portuguese would have to issue a EAW to get them back if they refused to attend voluntarily.
And then of course they would be "arguido" and able to refuse to take part.
And even if they did, it would prove, beyond a peradventure, that the official story was totally impossible.

Further questioning would be very likely to result in silence.
They have powerful legal teams in both countries, who would without doubt advise them to remain silent.
Which takes us back to the start.

The only place where they could not hide behind legal advice to remain silent is in a witness box, under oath.
As in a libel trial.
Which is why they and their advisors have no option but to prevent them ever appearing in court.

But i don't think we can underestimate the power of the media and public opinion. Ironically the beast they unleashed from day one and used so successfully may end up be the thing that ultimately destroys them.

Can you imagine, given the media interest , if the Review publically states that further examination of statements and a reconstruction is required to move the case forward. Then can you imagine the public outrage and backlash if they then refuse?

Perhaps there is no chance of a reconstruction but if the Yard or the PJ use public opinion cleverly and to their advantage they may put the T9 in a position where their refusal to take part makes them look guilty of something.

If they stay silent under questioning again how will that play out in the media?

Where do the McCann's go from there? How can they spin that?

They just about got away with it last time on the basis of those nasty Portuguese wanting to fit them up.

That won't wash this time if the Yard concur and are seen to be playing an active role in the re-examination.

I also actually think as well the re questioning can ultimately come down to one person and the evidence may already be there to blow this wide open.

It needs one detective to ask Jane Tanner whether she identified Robert Murat whilst in the back of the surveillance van as the abductor she saw on the night of Maddie's disappearance.

The Rogatory interviews touched upon it and she tacitly admitted as such by stating "she just thought it was" however further questioning without the restrictions of the Rogatory's narrow terms should allow the question to be directly asked.

And remember Bob Small was there at the time and no doubt recorded the answer she gave. That information was never released publically in the files.

So if she says she did finger him at the time but then thought it wasn’t him then it blows the whole Tanner sighting up in the air.

No Tanner sighting then no abduction evidence whatsoever. Then there is the issue of why she lied about it and him.

Then i would imagine the detectives go from that one question outwards to the rest of the group and see how it plays out.

by Me 27.01.13 12:27

I guess it can be summarised like this.

The McCann’s have publically and vocally stated to the world they wanted the review and they wanted the case reopened.

They have got their wish in the review at least at this stage.

If the review team and the PJ jointly say “yes we want to reopen the case but we need a reconstruction and we need to question you and your friends in order to do so”.

If the Team then refuse where does that leave them?

They will then have got what they so vociferously asked for and if the investigators they asked to look at the files have concluded that this is how the investigation must be restarted how can they then refuse to take part?

What can they say to justify not taking part?

Are they going to seriously say “we’re not going to take part because we don’t agree with the conclusions of the review we asked to be set up”

Are they going to say “no we fear the Yard are trying to fit us up”?

How can that be spun into anything convincing when the whole world will see that they are obstructing the review and investigation they asked for?

They will be backed into a PR corner as anything other than full cooperation irreparably damages them.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.01.13 13:16

Me wrote:I guess it can be summarised like this.

The McCann’s have publically and vocally stated to the world they wanted the review and they wanted the case reopened.

They have got their wish in the review at least at this stage.

If the review team and the PJ jointly say “yes we want to reopen the case but we need a reconstruction and we need to question you and your friends in order to do so”.

If the Team then refuse where does that leave them?

They will then have got what they so vociferously asked for and if the investigators they asked to look at the files have concluded that this is how the investigation must be restarted how can they then refuse to take part?

What can they say to justify not taking part?

Are they going to seriously say “we’re not going to take part because we don’t agree with the conclusions of the review we asked to be set up”

Are they going to say “no we fear the Yard are trying to fit us up”?

How can that be spun into anything convincing when the whole world will see that they are obstructing the review and investigation they asked for?

They will be backed into a PR corner as anything other than full cooperation irreparably damages them.

My view exactly. If there is a chance that the case will be re-opened, they have to comply with anything and everything. If they don't, then they are finished and buried. They have been given too much say, and a lot of people were deeply angered by their appearance at Leveson Inquiry after they so shamelessly touted themselves around in the media spotlight, photo pops at fun runs etc - it went far beyond the bare necessities. They have acted as though they are somehow important people, which of course, they are not. They feel they have the right to demand or dictate terms, which they again, do not. People are getting mighty tired of these two.

by monkey mind 27.01.13 13:19

Me wrote:I They will be backed into a PR corner as anything other than full cooperation irreparably damages them.

Me, yes, good analysis. Thing is public opinion won’t send a person to prison. It may ostracise them but it won’t incarcerate them anywhere other than their own home. It would be a matter of balancing public opinion against a reconstruction.

I tend to agree with Peter, should the situation arise, I can’t see their counsel allowing them anywhere near a reconstruction. I think it is debateable they would even return voluntarily. First thing they did last time was enlist one of the best extradition lawyers money could buy.

I am reminded of Tom and Jerry, when after a day of mercilessly tormenting and well if not hounding then catting Jerry, his owner used to try put Tom out for the night. His little paws pushing frantically against the door frame trying to remain in his nice warm house whilst Jerry watched on unconcerned. Ah the irony.

And of course, if you are right about a regrouping of forces ready for the inevitable – and I wouldn’t rule that out. Well now depending on the nature of the evidence, that new evidence may well leave some of the T7 with some very serious thinking to do. The rules of the game would have changed drastically consequences potentially dire. If it were I, i’d certainly prefer the witness box to the other.

Not sayin’, just sayin’.

by **PeterMac** 27.01.13 13:30

A reconstruction will not happen
They can run round like demented chipmunks, pretend they saw things, or did not see things, for all their worth.
But someone has to play the part of the Abductor.

That person has to enter - sedate - select - turn round - and exit
Silently
Without leaving any forensic trace
Within 2 minutes. Max.

(Their timings - not mine)
Ergo -
There will be no reconstruction

by Me 27.01.13 13:33

I think that in the normal course of events in a "normal" investigation Peter is right about their counsel insisting they refuse to take part in a reconstruction and in answering any formal questions.

The problem is that this is now no longer a normal investigation and that's squarely as a result of their own actions over the years in the media.

As such the rules of the road are now so very different and the options open to them in responding to any official investigative requests for assistance are now very much more limited than they would be under usual circumstances.

I can't see a situation where they can reasonably justify any and all requests for assistance for the police either in the UK or in Portugal.

Their strategy was to claim the PJ were a bunch of amateurs intent on fitting them up. They can't now claim this if the Yard validates the PJ's theories and areas of investigation.

Any refusal would be shown to be an obstruction of justice both to the Police investigators and the wider public at large who would both rightly conclude "why are they trying to obstruct the process they asked for and what do they have to hide by doing so".

Can they afford to put themselves in that position?

by Me 27.01.13 13:34

PeterMac wrote:A reconstruction will not happen
They can run round like demented chipmunks, pretend they saw things, or did not see things, for all their worth.
But someone has to play the part of the Abductor.

That person has to enter - sedate - select - turn round - and exit
Silently
Without leaving any forensic trace
Within 2 minutes. Max.

(Their timings - not mine)
Ergo -
There will be no reconstruction

So Peter do you believe if they are asked to do so they will refuse point blank?

And if they do how do you think they can justify that?

by Montclair 27.01.13 13:35

PeterMac wrote:
Montclair wrote:
Why do you continue to say you don't know when I have just told you that the McCanns asked for the suspension. That is an indisputable FACT! BTW TB quoted a letter from CR to him which stated the FACT that the McCanns are trying to seek a settlement. It was also mentioned on Portuguese television by Hernâni Carvalho and in an article in TVMais. What more FACTS do you need?
The reason.
The course of events.
The strategy behind it.
The terms of the settlement they are seeking.
What concessions they have made.
What demands they are making.
The legal position under Portuguese law.
The legal consequences.

We shall find out sooner or later. Arguing in upper case will not bring that day forward.

I will say this only once more. The McCanns asked for the suspension and negotiation. The answers to your questions we will know soon but the one fact is that is the claimant, unusual as it is, who wants to make a deal.

by Dr What 27.01.13 13:38

The Mcs always have a get-out position.They can always refuse to do anything, refuse to say anything, by claiming that they are only following legal advice given to them by their legal representatives.It was used when KM refused to answer the 48 questions.As was said ealier, the only place that questions have to be answered is in Court.That will be avoided at all costs.

by **PeterMac** 27.01.13 13:39

Montclair wrote:
I will say this only once more. The McCanns asked for the suspension and negotiation. The answers to your questions we will know soon but the one fact is that is the claimant, unusual as it is, who wants to make a deal.

But there is another scenario, which looks externally identical.

by Guest 27.01.13 14:00

Me wrote:
PeterMac wrote:A reconstruction will not happen
They can run round like demented chipmunks, pretend they saw things, or did not see things, for all their worth.
But someone has to play the part of the Abductor.

That person has to enter - sedate - select - turn round - and exit
Silently
Without leaving any forensic trace
Within 2 minutes. Max.

(Their timings - not mine)
Ergo -
There will be no reconstruction

So Peter do you believe if they are asked to do so they will refuse point blank?

And if they do how do you think they can justify that?

I'd never underestimate those two, they're obviously very skilled politicians. I expect the policemen involved in the review aren't. The case is politics now.

by Me 27.01.13 14:06

tcat wrote:
Me wrote:
PeterMac wrote:A reconstruction will not happen
They can run round like demented chipmunks, pretend they saw things, or did not see things, for all their worth.
But someone has to play the part of the Abductor.

That person has to enter - sedate - select - turn round - and exit
Silently
Without leaving any forensic trace
Within 2 minutes. Max.

(Their timings - not mine)
Ergo -
There will be no reconstruction

So Peter do you believe if they are asked to do so they will refuse point blank?

And if they do how do you think they can justify that?
I'd never underestimate those two, they're obviously very skilled politicians. I expect the policemen involved in the review aren't. The case is politics now.

I accept that up to a point. Sometimes we give them too much credit. They have very good advisors but frequently the twosome let cats out of the bag.

The book being a classic example.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.01.13 14:08

Although public opinion does not rule the Justice system, bearing in mind the MILLIONS of taxpayers money spent on this pair both here and in Portugal, any failure to co-operate will kill ANY public support for them stone dead.

Any failure to co-operate will be confirmation, an admission of complete guilt IMHO.

They wouldn't dare.

by Guest 27.01.13 14:09

PeterMac wrote:Me.
Good arguments.
The chances of a reconstruction are virtually nil.
It is not a technique used in English law, (or not normally - there may be isolated examples)
and the Portuguese would have to issue a EAW to get them back if they refused to attend voluntarily.
And then of course they would be "arguido" and able to refuse to take part.
And even if they did, it would prove, beyond a peradventure, that the official story was totally impossible.

Further questioning would be very likely to result in silence.
They have powerful legal teams in both countries, who would without doubt advise them to remain silent.
Which takes us back to the start.

The only place where they could not hide behind legal advice to remain silent is in a witness box, under oath.
As in a libel trial.
Which is why they and their advisors have no option but to prevent them ever appearing in court.

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 6 321268

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?