The talks in Portugal in McCanns v Amaral - Carter-Ruck's version of events

by **Tony Bennett** 01.02.13 22:06

For information, and without comment, here are the last four paragraphs of a letter e-mailed me today from Carter-Ruck:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Finally, we confirm that we have contacted our clients' Portuguese lawyers Isabel Duarte & Associados concerning your suggestion that they "wrote to Mr Amaral's lawyers and to the Civil Cout, on or about 8 January, with proposals (1) to adjourn the trial for 6 months and (2) to seek a settlement with Dr Amaral".

While Isabel Duarte & Associados have not confirmed the existence of any communications in the terms which you suggested, they have confirmed that any communications passing between themselves and Mr Amaral's lawyer are confidential under Portuguese law and therefore cannot be disclosed to third parties.

In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

In addition, however, Isabel Duarte & Associados have confirmed that lawyers for both parties requested a stay of 30 days in the Portuguese proceedings to allow them to enter into settlemeent discussions. As such we are informed that your suggestion that Isabel Duarte & Associoades requested a 6 month stay or adjournment is simply not correct".

UNQUOTE

by plebgate 01.02.13 22:41

Tony Bennett wrote:For information, and without comment, here are the last four paragraphs of a letter e-mailed me today from Carter-Ruck:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Finally, we confirm that we have contacted our clients' Portuguese lawyers Isabel Duarte & Associados concerning your suggestion that they "wrote to Mr Amaral's lawyers and to the Civil Cout, on or about 8 January, with proposals (1) to adjourn the trial for 6 months and (2) to seek a settlement with Dr Amaral".

While Isabel Duarte & Associados have not confirmed the existence of any communications in the terms which you suggested, they have confirmed that any communications passing between themselves and Mr Amaral's lawyer are confidential under Portuguese law and therefore cannot be disclosed to third parties.

HOW VERY CONVENIENT FOR THEM

In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

HOW VERY CONVENIENT FOR THEM.

In addition, however, Isabel Duarte & Associados have confirmed that lawyers for both parties requested a stay of 30 days in the Portuguese proceedings to allow them to enter into settlemeent discussions. As such we are informed that your suggestion that Isabel Duarte & Associoades requested a 6 month stay or adjournment is simply not correct".

I IMAGINE THAT BOTH PARTIES WOULD HAVE HAD TO REQUEST A STAY OF 30 DAYS IN THE PORTUGESE PROCEEDINGS. THE QUESTION IS WHO INSTIGATED THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CLAIMANTS, BUT HOW VERY CONVENIENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE INCORRECT THAT DUARTE REQUESTED THE STAY OR ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED.

UNQUOTE

by **Tony Bennett** 01.02.13 22:47

plebgate wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:For information, and without comment, here are the last four paragraphs of a letter e-mailed me today from Carter-Ruck:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Finally, we confirm that we have contacted our clients' Portuguese lawyers Isabel Duarte & Associados concerning your suggestion that they "wrote to Mr Amaral's lawyers and to the Civil Cout, on or about 8 January, with proposals (1) to adjourn the trial for 6 months and (2) to seek a settlement with Dr Amaral".

While Isabel Duarte & Associados have not confirmed the existence of any communications in the terms which you suggested, they have confirmed that any communications passing between themselves and Mr Amaral's lawyer are confidential under Portuguese law and therefore cannot be disclosed to third parties.

HOW VERY CONVENIENT FOR THEM

In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

HOW VERY CONVENIENT FOR THEM.

In addition, however, Isabel Duarte & Associados have confirmed that lawyers for both parties requested a stay of 30 days in the Portuguese proceedings to allow them to enter into settlemeent discussions. As such we are informed that your suggestion that Isabel Duarte & Associoades requested a 6 month stay or adjournment is simply not correct".

I IMAGINE THAT BOTH PARTIES WOULD HAVE HAD TO REQUEST A STAY OF 30 DAYS IN THE PORTUGESE PROCEEDINGS. THE QUESTION IS WHO INSTIGATED THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CLAIMANTS, BUT HOW VERY CONVENIENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE INCORRECT THAT DUARTE REQUESTED THE STAY OR ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED.

UNQUOTE

plebgate, my thoughts precisely

by ShuBob 01.02.13 22:48

In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

I'll just look out of my window now to see if I can spot low flying pigs.

Nope. Didn't see any.

by happychick 01.02.13 22:50

Where did the quote of 6 months come from then?

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 22:51

ShuBob wrote:
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

I'll just look out of my window now to see if I can spot low flying pigs.

Nope. Didn't see any.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by bobbin 01.02.13 22:53

ShuBob wrote:
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

I'll just look out of my window now to see if I can spot low flying pigs.

Nope. Didn't see any.

"Nah, we don't have the paper work to hand" doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't exist at some time (before it got destroyed/burnt/binned/lost/left on the bus/the dog ate it, just like my late homework)
As you say, how convenient.

by CarolIne Ray 01.02.13 22:55

Nervous newbie posting here - Tony will your family be able to come along and support you next week?

God bless, Caroline x

by plebgate 01.02.13 22:56

hi shubob. lol.
Why on earth would they pay Duarte all that dosh and not ask to see the papers that had been submitted tothe Portugese court.
Carter fRruck off is what I would say to them if they could not get hold of the papers from Duarte. ha ha ha. Sorry for the language BUT......... they really do seem to believe the world and his wife are idiots.

by plebgate 01.02.13 23:02

Tony I just re-read this paragraph:
As such we are informed that your
suggestion that Isabel Duarte & Associoades requested a 6 month stay
or adjournment is simply not correct".

MY RESPONSE
So in other words you are only incorrect in that the stay was requested for 30 days and not 6 months.????? No denial that the claimants did not instigate the original request for stay???????

by littlepixie 01.02.13 23:03

Maybe they should tell that to the Judge.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 23:04

bobbin wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

I'll just look out of my window now to see if I can spot low flying pigs.

Nope. Didn't see any.

"Nah, we don't have the paper work to hand" doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't exist at some time (before it got destroyed/burnt/binned/lost/left on the bus/the dog ate it, just like my late homework)
As you say, how convenient.

pretty poor and oh so lamentable when these people charge so much for lying, some of them earn a day what the average peraon earns a year, its excrutiating to read
Them nitpicking means they have a problem

by **PeterMac** 01.02.13 23:10

Tony Bennett wrote:For information, and without comment, here are the last four paragraphs of a letter e-mailed me today from Carter-Ruck:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

. . .
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

So this is, in legal terms a "Frolic of their own". The McCanns "know noathing Meester Fawlty."
I am sorry, but their excuses and vindications get more ~~ridiculous~~, ludicrous each day.
Try
We can't "officially find the copy we have," which is the same thing. "We haven't destroyed it. That would be illegal, but we officially can't find it at the moment, and therefore we can go on pretending that we don't know." And you cannot prove us to be liars !!!

Have you ever wondered why the Post Office only lose letters to and from solicitors about the most important legal matters, so they have to be registered, delivered by special hearse and so on.
Tax demands in the same sort of envelope always get through OK.
98% of solicitors bring the rest of the professional into disrupute

by ShuBob 01.02.13 23:10

I find it interesting that having informed TB that the negotiations between TB and Amaral are confidential- that should have been the end of the matter- they then go on to make further excuses for why they can't verify the claim and then still deny the claim [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by plebgate 01.02.13 23:17

Well at least Carter Ruck seem to have confirmed that they have seen some sort of written correspondence from Duarte at some time.
I notice they refer to the firm as Duarte and Associados. Surely they would have written Duarte and Associates (being English) if they had never seen some kind of official written correspondence from them. lol very loud.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 23:39

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:For information, and without comment, here are the last four paragraphs of a letter e-mailed me today from Carter-Ruck:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

. . .
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.
So this is, in legal terms a "Frolic of their own". The McCanns "know noathing Meester Fawlty."
I am sorry, but their excuses and vindications get more ~~ridiculous~~, ludicrous each day.
Try
We can't "officially find the copy we have," which is the same thing. "We haven't destroyed it. That would be illegal, but we officially can't find it at the moment, and therefore we can go on pretending that we don't know." And you cannot prove us to be liars !!!

Have you ever wondered why the Post Office only lose letters to and from solicitors about the most important legal matters, so they have to be registered, delivered by special hearse and so on.
Tax demands in the same sort of envelope always get through OK.
98% of solicitors bring the rest of the professional into disrupute

But communication is no longer done by pigeon post. Nor require foot work of men.

The letter is literally one-click away.
Everything is done by email these days and it's easy peasy to locate and send it and within seconds it will be in your inbox - one simply click then scroll and double click et Viola. Is it possible they need a 'Silk' to tell them how to do their job properly and fairly ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They sure know how to use the mouse evidently. :lol!:It's apparent the mouse is more competent than them lawyers and mouse does not lie.

Childish game they play. Their nappies are leaking and something stink to high heaven. The silken lady better hurry up and get them all changed before they enter courtroom else the stench will contaminate the Court room.

by hippywippywoo 01.02.13 23:51

Isn't Amaral prepared to give you a copy of his copy of the letter?

by plebgate 01.02.13 23:55

Maybe he has hippywippywoo.
Wouldn't that be great.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 23:57

hippywippywoo wrote:Isn't Amaral prepared to give you a copy of his copy of the letter?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.02.13 6:35

happychick wrote:Where did the quote of 6 months come from then?

I think it was in some statements made by some of our Portuguese friends, about a couple of weeks back

by bobbin 02.02.13 10:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
happychick wrote:Where did the quote of 6 months come from then?
I think it was in some statements made by some of our Portuguese friends, about a couple of weeks back

copies of which you have not yet got round to forwarding to the silken circus ?
Well, you have been very busy lately, dealing with the ~~lorry loads~~ limousine loads of A4 which they keep delivering for your urgent attention, so sharing information of such lowly origin as 'friends in Portugal' is probably not a top priority at the moment. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Angelique 02.02.13 10:18

Correct me if I am wrong, but you need this copy letter in your Defence, yes ?

They are obliged to supply it, yes?

If not they will have to explain why, yes?

Not available at the moment won't wash.

P.S.

Could this result in you requesting an adjournment?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.02.13 10:25

plebgate wrote:Tony I just re-read this paragraph:
As such we are informed that your
suggestion that Isabel Duarte & Associoades requested a 6 month stay
or adjournment is simply not correct".

MY RESPONSE
So in other words you are only incorrect in that the stay was requested for 30 days and not 6 months.????? No denial that the claimants did not instigate the original request for stay???????

I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that Ms Duarte wrote a letter. I am still asking for it to be produced in court. It was written I believe over 3 weeks ago.

Of course, the McCann Team are denying, not very convincingly, that they never requested a settlement.

Still leaves open the question - with them at Amaral's throat after more than 3 years and 7 months of the libel action, why, with your team of lawyers and witnesses poised and ready to strike (er, apart from Marcos Aragao Correia, that is) ...why agree to talks at all?

by monkey mind 02.02.13 10:37

It's all very convenient isn't it. The Pt lawyers won't release any info to the UK lawyers under legal privilege. The McCann's who must clearly be informed as to the reason behind such negotiations and whether in fact they were the ones to institute such proceedings or not may or may not have told their UK lawyers. The McCanns will not be at court and therefore cannot be questioned on oath. Proper little daisy chain isn'tit?

by jd 02.02.13 11:30

Writer attacks McCann spend
Written by Dilip Kuner Friday, 23 November 2012 13:30

A LOCAL author has criticised the parents of Madeleine McCann for using money meant to find the missing girl to fund libel cases.

“To use the cash collected for finding Madeleine to silence intelligent criticism and research is criminal in itself,” said Brian Deller, from Malaga. His comments came after a book by American Criminal Profiler Patricia Brown was published.

Deller, known for his books on motoring in Spain, said: “Needless to say the McCanns, with their massive funds collected from a sympathetic public to finance the search for poor little Madeleine, have engaged top lawyers who specialise in libel actions to have the book banned. Amazon has had to withdraw it from their on-line web-site.”

He added that money donated to find Madeleine should not be used to fund libel actions, saying the silencing of critics and book bans were the actions of totalitarian regimes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Montclair 02.02.13 13:02

The period of 6 months was reported in the Portuguese newspapers and in the articles it was reported that this information came from a judicial source. Who that judicial source is who knows?

BTW, if the suspension period were 30 days, it would be coming to an end soon, wouldn't it? This whole affair just gets curiouser and curiouser!

by Angelique 02.02.13 16:51

It has been reported on by Joana Morais "that Lawyers for the Defendants Have accepted a meeting to take place within the following 20 days". This was on her site dated 24th January but no indication when this would be.

by plebgate 02.02.13 18:17

Tony - if I were them after all this time there is no way I would agree to settle with Mr. Amaral out of court. Surely, if everything he has said and written about them is false they would want their day in court so papers worldwide would put them front page news about how very, very wronged they have been. An out of court settlement will not imo stop people being suspicious - I think there is only one way they will ever stop that and it is to appear in court both here and in Portugal, get in the witness box and swear on oath that the statements they made are correct and for the 48 questions to be answered satisfactorily.
What I find rtotally and utterly ridiculous is that the parents of a little girl who went missing after they left her alone with her siblings in an unlocked apartment in a foreign land for several nights running - potentially a criminal act- have the bare faced cheek to take out criminal proceedings against you because you have the audacity to query their version of events. They do not think they should be before the courts because of their actions, but appear to be more than happy to see you behind bars and bankrupted. It really beggars belief that this can happen and not one of the criminal agencies in this country appear to be doing anything about the inequality of it all. Let us hope that all goes well for you and that sanity prevails next week.

by Montclair 02.02.13 20:12

ShuBob wrote:
In any event, neither we nor our clients have a copy of any communications which may have passed between Isabel Duarte & Associados and Mr Amaral's lawyers concerning the question of the adjournment.

I'll just look out of my window now to see if I can spot low flying pigs.

Nope. Didn't see any.

So, Isabel Duarte doesn't give her clients, the McCanns (who obviously asked for the suspension), any copies of the communications between her and the defendents' lawyers. That doesn't sound very ethical to me. You would expect that the McCanns, especially control freak Gerry, would want to know everything that is going on in the "negotiation", any client would want to know. So, CR do you really believe that the poisonous pair don't have any copies or do you think that everyone else is stupid enough to believe this?