The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

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 7 Mm11

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 7 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

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 7 Mm11

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 7 Regist10

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 7 of 17 Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by saltnpepper 27.01.13 14:09

Like your analysis Me,makes a lot of sence...£3.5 million from the tax payers says they do what they are told
The McCanns have said they are in doubt the case will be reopened...i can guess their line when it does & they are under the spotlight again...but we asked for the reopening mwahhhhhh
saltnpepper
saltnpepper

Posts : 154
Activity : 154
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : wales

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by sharonl 27.01.13 14:10

Our friends on the Missing Madeleine forum are making some interesting comments on the McCanns’ climbdown in Portugal and the prospects for Tony next week. Here is a selection from today:


1. I wouldn't like to be a judge in this case, could you send this man to prison aware of an ongoing review here & in Portugal that could possibly implicate the McCanns?

2. The Funchal lawyer’s successful defence to Dr Amaral’s libel case against him - Marcos Corriea won because even though most of what he said was rubbish, but the judge held he sincerely believed it to be true - scuppered any chance of the McCanns winning against Dr Amaral. They kept up the brinkmanship but had to draw back from the cliff edge. The fact that UK papers have not been doing some pre-covering of the libel trial is interesting - all Madeleine coverage has been the usual nonsense when the McCanns are in trouble - the McCann PR machine didn’t want any climb-down reported. This means that seeking another outcome has been paramount to the McCanns for some time now - as stated above at least since Dr Amaral lost his libel case. The knowledge that all was up in going to trial has left the McCanns with trying to salvage something to give to the British public and media – vindication/vindicated would be the new buzz words – up there with exoneration/exonerated in the vocabulary used by the McCanns’ PR man. They want something to save face and if I was Dr Amaral and the other defendants I wouldn’t give it to them. Tony Bennett is the ‘butterfly on the wheel’ of the McCann’s vindictiveness (and I do not believe it is just the McCanns driving this) – I hope he wins out in the end because he seems to be a just and honest man. All of this, of course, is just my opinion based on what is available to comment on in the media.

3. I certainly hope truth and justice prevail in the end, Tony has been involved in a number of causes of injustice apart from this case, and helped to highlight corrupt police officers in one case and all the nastiness that has been thrown at him, he has never resorted to the behaviour of those who attack him. I dont see how any sane judge could possibly find him guilty of what he has been accused of. The McCanns have shown themselves up in pursing Tony, strange how they did not pursue the PJ into court isnt it! The Mccanns have never taken responsibility for anything, but continually blame and lash out at other people. But as has been said many times there can only be one version of the truth and ultimately the McCanns will be condemned by their own words so may wish they didn’t give so many interviews, may wish they didn’t write a book, may wish their police statements were not riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. When you don’t tell the truth sooner or later you slip up and I think we have lost count of all the "slip ups" the Mccanns have made!

4. I agree it is now most likely face saving mode in the face of a trial where the odds are heavily against them. Given that the only real confirmation of events is in an affidavit presented by their own lawyers (albeit it backs up the original rumours and information from Portugal) it would be surprising if they weren't to present the best possible interpretation for their clients benefit. I would hazard a guess that if the application to the court followed any approach by the defendant(s) it would have been stated since it would place a completely different complexion on the state of play rather than effectively concede it was their clients' looking for a way out.

5. The McCanns are now trying to find a way out of this libel case because they know they are going to lose and they can't withdraw their complaint without serious legal and punitive consequences. They could face possible charges of litigaçáo de má fé (vexatious litigation) and I'm sure that wouldn't be able to keep that out of the press. They are obviously trying to play for time to find a way out of the corner they have painted themselves into. They are in panic mode.

6. Well I'm glad to hear you confirm the Vexatious Litigation angle, Carolina: It's something I've brought up many times since Healy & McCann were badly advised to launch the action, but I'm only familiar with English Law - It's good (but perhaps not surprising) that the concept and remedies are reflected in your neck of the woods.
sharonl
sharonl
Forum Owner

Posts : 8538
Activity : 11175
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 14:15

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

Peter Mac,

Do you have any information on this: someone had Steven Foy (Review team boss (?) resigning or being resigned recently.

Is this correct?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 14:32

Portia wrote: [...]
Peter Mac,

Do you have any information on this: someone had Steven Foy (Review team boss (?) resigning or being resigned recently.

Is this correct?
***
You mean Simon Foy?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by PeterMac 27.01.13 14:36

No idea, Sorry.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 13583
Activity : 16577
Likes received : 2064
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 14:37

Smokeandmirrors wrote: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.
Maybe, but perhaps a new wave of xenophobia from the likes of Tony Parsons about 'corrupt' Portuguese police officers would be unleashed to support K&G.

Those people have simply decided to support the McCanns come what may I think.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by PeterMac 27.01.13 14:46

Me wrote: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?

"We have thought long and hard about all the events of the last 5 years, and have taken legal advice.
It was never our intention to pursue individuals who said libellous things, and purported theories which were false, but we were advised we had to try to stop them, so that the search for Maaaad'l'in would not be harmed.
It is clear now that these actions are costing the Find Maaaad'l'in Fund money which should be spent on finding her and returning her to the faaaam'ly.
So, because we are both Christians and our faith teaches forgiveness, and because finding our beautiful daughter Maaaad'l'in is always our first priority, we have decided to drop all the legal cases and to concentrate on getting her home.
We shall start sometime in the summer or early autumn, when the new edition of the book has been finished.
So please give generously, as the Fund is down to its last half million."


That might do it, don't you think.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 13583
Activity : 16577
Likes received : 2064
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Ribisl 27.01.13 14:47

I don't think it's helpful or particularly relevant to argue over who 'caved in' because it's never that clear cut and the lawyers acting for each side would try to make us believe it was the others who caved in. The two sides are starting a process of negotiation as we speak and they have six months to agree on the terms of settlement. Their first meeting is scheduled within less than 20 days.

I believe the TM realised their chances of winning outright against GA is slim, now that so much of information eg PJ files is in the public domain. They can suppress his book but not the PJ files. However, I don't think the average members of public at large are much interested in this case and I therefore do not believe public opinion is such a major factor in their decision to go for a settlement.

Wrt reconstruction, I don't think there is any chance the Tapas9 would ever agree to take part. Perhaps they could simply claim after five years their memory would not be so reliable.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
avatar
Ribisl

Posts : 807
Activity : 858
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Smokeandmirrors 27.01.13 14:48

tcat wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote: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.
Maybe, but perhaps a new wave of xenophobia from the likes of Tony Parsons about 'corrupt' Portuguese police officers would be unleashed to support K&G.

Those people have simply decided to support the McCanns come what may I think.

Possible, but even the most ardent supporters would fail to understand a refusal to co-operate if the McCanns wish to re-open the case is granted I think. It would be a nonsense too far. If Operation Grange cannot come up with any evidence that an abduction took place, they will be forced to examine the parents story and investigate them thoroughly IMO. I do not believe the Mc's will get away with the charade much longer.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors

Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 15:02

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tcat wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote: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.
Maybe, but perhaps a new wave of xenophobia from the likes of Tony Parsons about 'corrupt' Portuguese police officers would be unleashed to support K&G.

Those people have simply decided to support the McCanns come what may I think.

Possible, but even the most ardent supporters would fail to understand a refusal to co-operate if the McCanns wish to re-open the case is granted I think. It would be a nonsense too far. If Operation Grange cannot come up with any evidence that an abduction took place, they will be forced to examine the parents story and investigate them thoroughly IMO. I do not believe the Mc's will get away with the charade much longer.
I hope you're right 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 7 847771

But personally I think a lot of those supporters don't care about the truth and many of them (including online supporters) probably do know K&G had some involvement, but they've decided to support them to the end anyway. Including journalists and TV presenters, they believe it was an accident and don't think the parents should be punished (especially not in Portugal) - so they'll do everything they can to prevent that. We're up against a reality far more complicated than most people realise I think. It's politics. And politics in the UK is very xenophobic at the moment isn't it (probably always has been).
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Me 27.01.13 15:04

PeterMac wrote:
Me wrote: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?

"We have thought long and hard about all the events of the last 5 years, and have taken legal advice.
It was never our intention to pursue individuals who said libellous things, and purported theories which were false, but we were advised we had to try to stop them, so that the search for Maaaad'l'in would not be harmed.
It is clear now that these actions are costing the Find Maaaad'l'in Fund money which should be spent on finding her and returning her to the faaaam'ly.
So, because we are both Christians and our faith teaches forgiveness, and because finding our beautiful daughter Maaaad'l'in is always our first priority, we have decided to drop all the legal cases and to concentrate on getting her home.
We shall start sometime in the summer or early autumn, when the new edition of the book has been finished.
So please give generously, as the Fund is down to its last half million."


That might do it, don't you think.

But that is dependent on Amaral keeping quiet which i don't think he will to be honest.

In relation to the reconstruction there is an important distinction which needs to be made.

It is fundamentally different if there is no reconstruction due to the non participation of the T9 than if there is no reconstruction due to the inveitigative needs of the enquiry.

I think that if that is what both police teams believe is needed they should put it out there, and give their reasons why.

Then its up to the McCann's to squirm their way out of participating quite clearly for the reasons you have stated.

We all know they don't want a reconstruction but it's how they can justify not participating if the enquiry clearly states, and gives detailed reasoning, why there should be one.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by monkey mind 27.01.13 15:22

[quote="tcat"]
Smokeandmirrors wrote:[But personally I think a lot of those supporters don't care about the truth and many of them (including online supporters) probably do know K&G had some involvement, but they've decided to support them to the end anyway. Including journalists and TV presenters, they believe it was an accident and don't think the parents should be punished (especially not in Portugal) - so they'll do everything they can to prevent that. We're up against a reality far more complicated than most people realise I think. It's politics. And politics in the UK is very xenophobic at the moment isn't it (probably always has been).
Agreed Tcat,

It wouldn’t be about celebrity anymore. It would be about prison. British public opinion doesn’t convict you. The Pt Justice system does. British opinion doesn’t sentence you the Pt Judiciary does. Every legal ruse could and probably would be used to avoid that. The British public and their perceptions would become almost irrelevant instead the spotlight would be turned on the Portuguese public and the right to fair trial.

It is quite conceivable they would have to be extradited to Portugal. Their refusals would all be done under counsel’s advice. The British judiciary would dress up theri right to fair trial in Pt. It would be suggested the public there has already convicted them. Against their human rights etc etc. All simply delaying the inevitable. If there was no abduction then we have seen lies on an almost unprecedented scale. Why would that stop just because of a bit of evidence? It would continue dressed up in legal argument I would suggest.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Activity : 629
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Smokeandmirrors 27.01.13 15:41

[quote="monkey mind"]
tcat wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:[But personally I think a lot of those supporters don't care about the truth and many of them (including online supporters) probably do know K&G had some involvement, but they've decided to support them to the end anyway. Including journalists and TV presenters, they believe it was an accident and don't think the parents should be punished (especially not in Portugal) - so they'll do everything they can to prevent that. We're up against a reality far more complicated than most people realise I think. It's politics. And politics in the UK is very xenophobic at the moment isn't it (probably always has been).
Agreed Tcat,

It wouldn’t be about celebrity anymore. It would be about prison. British public opinion doesn’t convict you. The Pt Justice system does. British opinion doesn’t sentence you the Pt Judiciary does. Every legal ruse could and probably would be used to avoid that. The British public and their perceptions would become almost irrelevant instead the spotlight would be turned on the Portuguese public and the right to fair trial.

It is quite conceivable they would have to be extradited to Portugal. Their refusals would all be done under counsel’s advice. The British judiciary would dress up theri right to fair trial in Pt. It would be suggested the public there has already convicted them. Against their human rights etc etc. All simply delaying the inevitable. If there was no abduction then we have seen lies on an almost unprecedented scale. Why would that stop just because of a bit of evidence? It would continue dressed up in legal argument I would suggest.

It would be just like so many other shameful cover ups. Cover ups will always form part of the political landscape sadly. It all hinges on who is protecting the McCanns and why.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors

Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 15:44

[quote="monkey mind"]
tcat wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:[But personally I think a lot of those supporters don't care about the truth and many of them (including online supporters) probably do know K&G had some involvement, but they've decided to support them to the end anyway. Including journalists and TV presenters, they believe it was an accident and don't think the parents should be punished (especially not in Portugal) - so they'll do everything they can to prevent that. We're up against a reality far more complicated than most people realise I think. It's politics. And politics in the UK is very xenophobic at the moment isn't it (probably always has been).
Agreed Tcat,

It wouldn’t be about celebrity anymore. It would be about prison. British public opinion doesn’t convict you. The Pt Justice system does. British opinion doesn’t sentence you the Pt Judiciary does. Every legal ruse could and probably would be used to avoid that. The British public and their perceptions would become almost irrelevant instead the spotlight would be turned on the Portuguese public and the right to fair trial.

It is quite conceivable they would have to be extradited to Portugal. Their refusals would all be done under counsel’s advice. The British judiciary would dress up theri right to fair trial in Pt. It would be suggested the public there has already convicted them. Against their human rights etc etc. All simply delaying the inevitable. If there was no abduction then we have seen lies on an almost unprecedented scale. Why would that stop just because of a bit of evidence? It would continue dressed up in legal argument I would suggest.
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 7 677999948

Gloomy prognosis isn't it. And the policemen in both countries are stuck in the middle of it.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by PeterMac 27.01.13 15:49

Me wrote:But that is dependent on Amaral keeping quiet which i don't think he will to be honest.
In relation to the reconstruction there is an important distinction which needs to be made.
It is fundamentally different if there is no reconstruction due to the non participation of the T9 than if there is no reconstruction due to the inveitigative needs of the enquiry.
I think that if that is what both police teams believe is needed they should put it out there, and give their reasons why.
Then its up to the McCann's to squirm their way out of participating quite clearly for the reasons you have stated.
We all know they don't want a reconstruction but it's how they can justify not participating if the enquiry clearly states, and gives detailed reasoning, why there should be one.
Good points.
Amaral has already been told by the highest court in Portugal that he can publish his book.
A libel trial is at 'first instance' and is not going to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.

You make a very fine distinction in the reconstruction point.
What would be the purpose of a reconstruction ?
We are talking about time time between GM's visit and JT's "sighting". Four or five minutes at most.
Dramatis personae
GM,
JT,
JW
AND someone playing the abductor.

The remaining people in the group are irrelevant, surely. They were not there, and saw nothing.
The "abduction is not just important, or the most important aspect, or critical or anything else.
The allegation of "abduction" IS the entire subject.
There is nothing else.
So what then is the purpose of a five minute walk through, of the type we have already seen on the Panorama programme.

That one included only GM JW and JT. It did not include an abductor getting in, sedating three children, and getting out again.
That part was fudged or ignored or edited out.

From the point of view of the police the point must be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying, to show the participants that the police know they are lying, and to show anyone who cares to watch that the official story is impossible, thereby to put GM and JT under pressure to tell the truth ?
But they and we and the world already know that, and they didn't and haven't.

So to ask them to attend would be for a different reason.
To expect a refusal, and thereby to claim the moral high ground, and then to justify re-interviewing firstly about the decision to refuse, and secondarily in more detail about the events and the inconsistencies and lies and fabrications.

And for that reason they are unlikely even to return to Portugal, let alone take part in a reconstruction.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 13583
Activity : 16577
Likes received : 2064
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by southern_gal 27.01.13 15:50

Me wrote:

Ok so do you now accept that currency is not a valid or viable reason for this negotiation?
I don't think it's about the fluctuation of the currency but the sum of money that the MC's are looking at being held liable for(IMO) such as the legal costs GA has incurred to this point of the suit, the loss of income GA has suffered from the sale of his book as a direct result of the actions of the MC's and loss on income that GA has suffered because of the actions of the MC's. If this suit is similar to a civil suit(America) then he could also ask for money to compensate for the mental anguish he has suffered at the hands of the MC's. From articles that interviewed him it appears that GA has suffered a great deal.(IMO) And I think that the "Protection" component is an agreement of some sort from GA not to pursue any further legal actions against the MC's at a later time which if I were in their shoes I would be desperate to get GA to agree to.

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.

I agree. If the MC's were reasonably confident that they could prove GA had in fact knowingly made false accusations against them and get a court judgement that would add a great deal of credibility for the MC's which they could then incorporate into their media campaign, then why settle? I don't think it's because of the costs involved in going to court especially now that they have a published book in addition to the confidential contributions they claim are being donated and a home that is paid for which they could take out loans against.

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

I suspect GA doesn't have any intention of paying them one cent.

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".

That's what I would do and don't understand why GA didn't. It would have been a great motivator to cut out the stalling tactics.

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.

And returning all of his books that is in their attorney and has failed to do despite the courts decision otherwise.

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.

The only concession being the protection that GA will not pursue any further action against them I hope.

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".

I really wish he had too!!

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.

Could the MC's potentially risk more than a financial judgement against them if GA pursued further action?

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.

I agree except for their reasoning of. IMO their arrogance is such that they are above being held responsible for their actions.

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).

Would SY be sharing any part of their investigation with the MC's at this point especially with all of the "awareness" from the public and the NOTW fallout?

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? Nope. Not me.

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.

I'm really hoping that SY is but thus far I have been really shocked and perplexed that they haven't yet!

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.

I agree except for the value of Tony's case. I admit, I have absolutely no understanding of the England/Portugal court system but think Mr. Bennett's battle is more than a skirmish because his case is about the issue of freedom of speech, the right to have an opinion without fear of imprisonment and how the media has contributed to/involved/played a role in propaganda, selection and manipulation of information the public is allowed to know.

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.

Me, I value your opinions greatly and am in no way attacking or challenging you.
southern_gal
southern_gal

Posts : 72
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-24
Location : Tennessee

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by monkey mind 27.01.13 15:52

Gloomy indeed tcat. Of course that is only IF there was no abduction. If it's as we are wanted to believe then I'm sure the T9 will all just pop over there easy as you like, do their reconstructions without their stories changing once again, go an interview or two with the PJ and then pop back in time for work on monday morning.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Activity : 629
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 16:02

monkey mind wrote:Gloomy indeed tcat. Of course that is only IF there was no abduction. If it's as we are wanted to believe then I'm sure the T9 will all just pop over there easy as you like, do their reconstructions without their stories changing once again, go an interview or two with the PJ and then pop back in time for work on monday morning.
The seven are certainly happy to do interviews aren't they. They've never been off the TV screens supporting K&G and their search over the years.

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 7 742129
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Monty Heck 27.01.13 16:30

If the outcome of the SY investigation is agreement with th PJ's conclusion that no abduction had taken place and that further investigation of the T9 is now required, then that is what would happen, regardless of public opinion for or against the McCs. As far as public opinion goes, there would still be enormous support for the McCs were they to fight an extradition battle and why would there not be? Countless people supported them in spite of their candid admissions of leaving their children alone in unsecured accommodation while they went off "to dine" night after night. There would surely be uproar at any ttempt to snatch away the poor suffering parents from their remaining 2 children and subject them to the outrageous indignity of a trial abroad. Why else has so much time, money and effort gone into carefully crafting the McCs image over the years, and into denigrating the PJ and all things Portuguese?

No matter how great the ballyhoo, this would make no difference to the process of the law. This would not be about public opinion, for or against the couple. The T9 could co-operate or invoke any right to silence as they saw fit, and the Portugese state would have to set out its case and all the evidence accumulated by all the police enquiries in both countries. We have to remember that invoking the right to silence in a trial situation cannot be taken as evidence of guilt and that the burden of proof lies with the prosecuting authority.

If both police authorities agree that the T9 should be investigated further, that would offer the parties suspected of the commission of a crime or crimes the opportunity to "demonstrate their innocence" and if they cannot or will not then a trial would be the only outcome. Let's hope that, in such case there would be no political intereference and that the law would be allowed to take its proper course. There are sufficient safeguards in the justice system to protect those accused, indeed the law demands that the benefit of any reasonable doubt be given in their favour. That this case has been allowed to drag on so long is a travesty and has done much harm to the McCs themselves. If the Portuguese had had the courage to bring them to trial in 2008 instead of archiving he case, they may have been exonorated or convicted and free by now but instead this continues to loom over all their lives.
avatar
Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Activity : 472
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by aiyoyo 27.01.13 16:32

PeterMac wrote:
Me wrote:But that is dependent on Amaral keeping quiet which i don't think he will to be honest.
In relation to the reconstruction there is an important distinction which needs to be made.
It is fundamentally different if there is no reconstruction due to the non participation of the T9 than if there is no reconstruction due to the inveitigative needs of the enquiry.
I think that if that is what both police teams believe is needed they should put it out there, and give their reasons why.
Then its up to the McCann's to squirm their way out of participating quite clearly for the reasons you have stated.
We all know they don't want a reconstruction but it's how they can justify not participating if the enquiry clearly states, and gives detailed reasoning, why there should be one.
Good points.
Amaral has already been told by the highest court in Portugal that he can publish his book.
A libel trial is at 'first instance' and is not going to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.

You make a very fine distinction in the reconstruction point.
What would be the purpose of a reconstruction ?
We are talking about time time between GM's visit and JT's "sighting". Four or five minutes at most.
Dramatis personae
GM,
JT,
JW
AND someone playing the abductor.

The remaining people in the group are irrelevant, surely. They were not there, and saw nothing.
The "abduction is not just important, or the most important aspect, or critical or anything else.
The allegation of "abduction" IS the entire subject.
There is nothing else.
So what then is the purpose of a five minute walk through, of the type we have already seen on the Panorama programme.

That one included only GM JW and JT. It did not include an abductor getting in, sedating three children, and getting out again.
That part was fudged or ignored or edited out.

From the point of view of the police the point must be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying, to show the participants that the police know they are lying, and to show anyone who cares to watch that the official story is impossible, thereby to put GM and JT under pressure to tell the truth ?
But they and we and the world already know that, and they didn't and haven't.

So to ask them to attend would be for a different reason.
To expect a refusal, and thereby to claim the moral high ground, and then to justify re-interviewing firstly about the decision to refuse, and secondarily in more detail about the events and the inconsistencies and lies and fabrications.

And for that reason they are unlikely even to return to Portugal, let alone take part in a reconstruction.


I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?
As in, what if there's an investigative need for the reconstruction. fully supported by SY with SY impressing upon Cameron's office the importance of not putting obstacles in front of an EAW, how can they refuse an EAW order?

One would have thought lawyer's involvement is refusing it is pointless when it is up to Home Office ultimately.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Monty Heck 27.01.13 16:52

"I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?"

Do you think the PJ would still offer a reconstruction? Maybe I have this wrong, but wasn't this part of the opportunity given to the group to demonstrate the innocence of the parents? They could (and seem to already) have tested the timeline against all the relevant statements so seems that the reconstruction was to give the T9 the chance to alter or retract anything which might have been revealed while participating in the reconstruction as being impossible to tally with their version of events. Having already refused the offer, would there be any purpose in giving them a second crack at something which would be of benefit only to the T9, rather than assisting the investigation? Sure many will disagree but willing to stand corrected.
avatar
Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Activity : 472
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Me 27.01.13 17:01

Monty Heck wrote:"I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?"

Do you think the PJ would still offer a reconstruction? Maybe I have this wrong, but wasn't this part of the opportunity given to the group to demonstrate the innocence of the parents? They could (and seem to already) have tested the timeline against all the relevant statements so seems that the reconstruction was to give the T9 the chance to alter or retract anything which might have been revealed while participating in the reconstruction as being impossible to tally with their version of events. Having already refused the offer, would there be any purpose in giving them a second crack at something which would be of benefit only to the T9, rather than assisting the investigation? Sure many will disagree but willing to stand corrected.

I would propose the idea of a reocnstruction is to act out the statements that they gave. I think precisely the opposite, a reconstruction would expose and visualise the lies in the statements which would focus the T9's minds when the inevitable questioning then followed as to why their statements didn't stack up against the recon.

I disagree about a recon being only being of use with 3 or 4 of the main players. I think they all need to take part as the shared checking routine they all gave in their statements are a fundamental element of the child's disappearance.

It all needs playing out and exposing, then get them in one by one and see who the police can get to crack first.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by PeterMac 27.01.13 17:01

aiyoyo wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?
As in, what if there's an investigative need for the reconstruction. fully supported by SY with SY impressing upon Cameron's office the importance of not putting obstacles in front of an EAW, how can they refuse an EAW order?
One would have thought lawyer's involvement is refusing it is pointless when it is up to Home Office ultimately.
The part I am struggling with is "investigative need" for a reconstruction.

Gerry enters, sees, exits and talks.
Jez talks
Tanner walks past, and sees.


And that is it. I cannot see what more a reconstruction can do.

The thing missing in this is an abductor, who has that one minute and twenty seconds to do everything described.
That is the bit that they have to reconstruct. Not the talking and the passing.
The "abduction' .
The entry, sedation, collection, and exit. Silently, and without leaving any forensic trace.
And that is the bit which is entirely impossible of reconstruction, because it is entirely impossible.

Unless Gerry is going to take on that role and demonstrate, with someone else standing in talking to Jez . . .
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 13583
Activity : 16577
Likes received : 2064
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by aiyoyo 27.01.13 17:14

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?
As in, what if there's an investigative need for the reconstruction. fully supported by SY with SY impressing upon Cameron's office the importance of not putting obstacles in front of an EAW, how can they refuse an EAW order?
One would have thought lawyer's involvement is refusing it is pointless when it is up to Home Office ultimately.
The part I am struggling with is "investigative need" for a reconstruction.

Gerry enters, sees, exits and talks.
Jez talks
Tanner walks past, and sees.


And that is it. I cannot see what more a reconstruction can do.

The thing missing in this is an abductor, who has that one minute and twenty seconds to do everything described.
That is the bit that they have to reconstruct. Not the talking and the passing.
The "abduction' .
The entry, sedation, collection, and exit. Silently, and without leaving any forensic trace.
And that is the bit which is entirely impossible of reconstruction, because it is entirely impossible.

Unless Gerry is going to take on that role and demonstrate, with someone else standing in talking to Jez . . .

If a recon does take place, I am sure in addition to the few main players, Police would have an actor playing the part of abductor.
Else, the recon would be useless as the whole point of it is to prove the there is no abduction.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

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 7 Empty 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'?

Post by Guest 27.01.13 17:19

PeterMac wrote: [...]
The thing missing in this is an abductor, who has that one minute and twenty seconds to do everything described.
That is the bit that they have to reconstruct. Not the talking and the passing.
The "abduction' .
The entry, sedation, collection, and exit. Silently, and without leaving any forensic trace.
And that is the bit which is entirely impossible of reconstruction, because it is entirely impossible.

Unless Gerry is going to take on that role and demonstrate, with someone else standing in talking to Jez . . .
***
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 7 742129
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 17 Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum