Re: McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing.

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 16:01

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
They may be able to 'appeal' about their libel 'claim' outcome, but they cannot 'appeal' against the two LOSING book 'ban' writ, 'costs', can they.
For which they, AND their 3 children, named in THAT 'writ', are STILL liable for.

Does that imply that Madeleine is liable for the costs of those cases ! !
So that if she is alive and well, she can now only give her "Farthings-worth"

It couldn't possibly mean the UK pick up the tab from a 'ward of court' decision could it? Those little loopholes that are sometimes a shocker.

by lj 06.04.15 17:17

Casey5 wrote:If the McCanns do lose and appeal does this mean that Goncalo Amaral would still be unable to have his assets reinstated until the appeal is heard?
Would interest be paid on any money lying in bank accounts etc. that he is unable to touch ?
I was just wondering because Senor Amaral has not only lost access to his assets but also - maybe - any interest accruing.
I just hope and pray he wins and the McCanns do not appeal. They may not as if they again lose on appeal they would have further costs to pay and they may decide, hopefully, to cut their losses.

I wonder in the case of the McCanns losing and going for an appeal they still can put an hold on his finances. That seem very unfair, but then justice often is unfair.

by lj 06.04.15 17:19

jeanmonroe wrote:
lj wrote:I don't think they can have the fund pay for their costs. The fund is no party to this lawsuit. The only way around is they pay and have the fund support them again.
However I believe, if they lose, they'll appeal and pay nothing. Who knows how long an appeal is going to take.

They may be able to 'appeal' about their libel 'claim' outcome, but they cannot 'appeal' against the two LOSING book 'ban' writ, 'costs', can they.

For which they, AND their 3 children, named in THAT 'writ', are STILL liable for.

Yes, you wonder how far can they push the envelope risking money of their kids.

by Guest 06.04.15 18:44

[quote="lj"]I don't think they can have the fund pay for their costs. The fund is no party to this lawsuit. The only way around is they pay and have the fund support them again.
However I believe, if they lose, they'll appeal and pay nothing. Who knows how long an appeal is going to take.[/quote]

Forever

by Briohazard 08.04.15 7:34

Portia wrote:
lj wrote:I don't think they can have the fund pay for their costs. The fund is no party to this lawsuit. The only way around is they pay and have the fund support them again.
However I believe, if they lose, they'll appeal and pay nothing. Who knows how long an appeal is going to take.

Forever

Could this be why they've just dumped a million of their own cash into the fund? So, if they lose, they could claim bankruptcy but still live comfortably from the fund? How does it work in the UK?

by espeland 08.04.15 9:26

Could this be why they've just dumped a million of their own cash into the fund? So, if they lose, they could claim bankruptcy but still live comfortably from the fund? How does it work in the UK?

The fund isn't a charity and therefore can't be used to protect their own cash.

by Liz Eagles 08.04.15 15:56

I don't expect an outright winner in this damages trial.

I expect there will be damages awarded to the McCanns in some form. The amount will probably be negligible and the most probable outcome. I expect each side will be asked to pay their own costs. IIRC Portuguese law in civil suits ask for this anyway.

I expect it to be an 'end'. I expect GA to take the hit and neither side will lose a large amount of money with the caveat that GA will accept to not publish his book in English for the English speaking population of the world.

This is what I expect. It doesn't mean I'm right.

I used to think there would be an outright winner and an appeal. I don't now. I think there will be compromise. GA will be allowed (by compromise) access to funds made from writing his book. The McCanns will probably be awarded some token gesture from the Portuguese media company and that will be an end to it.

All done and dusted. No appeals.

Just my opinion.

by plebgate 09.04.15 12:04

IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

by jeanmonroe 09.04.15 12:47

plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

Ain't THAT the TRUTH!

I'd say several 'offers' were 'made'. (to 'settle' out of court) winkwink

"out of court" settlements have served the McCanns and their 'friends', rather 'nicely' haven't they?

No 'questions' asked, of ANY of them, under 'oath'

GA, imo, was, and is, only 'interested' in getting JUSTICE for a defenceless child, left, diliberately and consciously, at total risk of harm, by her own parents.

by Daryl Dixon 09.04.15 17:52

plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

I've never seen an official statement that confirms that the McCanns asked Mr Amaral for an out of court settlement. In fact, this scenario in makes no sense whatsoever.

by espeland 09.04.15 18:32

Daryl Dixon wrote:
plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

I've never seen an official statement that confirms that the McCanns asked Mr Amaral for an out of court settlement. In fact, this scenario in makes no sense whatsoever.

The story of an abduction makes no sense either, unless you think like a McCann. Like the McCanns' view of the dogs ... totally unreliable. The rest of us see that if they've failed, it's just once - in the McCann case - and we quite reasonably wonder why it should be. Similarly, the McCanns' claimed that all book revenues will be put into the fund. That this wouldn't happen until years after publication was clearly an oversight by us - it's perfectly normal in McCann world.

by plebgate 09.04.15 18:39

Daryl Dixon wrote:
plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

I've never seen an official statement that confirms that the McCanns asked Mr Amaral for an out of court settlement. In fact, this scenario in makes no sense whatsoever.

IIRC it was reported on Joana's site, and I've never seen an official statement saying that they didn't ask for one.

EDITED TO ADD - there was also a six month delay to see if the two sides could come to an agreement before the trial started. Who instigated that then?

by Liz Eagles 09.04.15 19:13

I'm not going to be very popular (whenever was I) for giving my opinion on this.

Goncalo Amaral was was removed from the case very quickly and offered a sideways career step (that's the equivalent of being given janitorial duties and move your desk into the broom cupboard). The UK media with the help of Gordon Brown and the handy professional spin doctor Clarence Mitchell set about destroying any professional reputation he had. A bunch of high level people removed him.

Goncalo left the police service and wrote a book.

The book Goncalo wrote would have netted him (and still could) way, way above and beyond any potential earnings he could have achieved working for the PJ. This was his mistake imo and for that I'll no doubt get slated...but hang on a wee minute. You see, Goncalo wrote a book about his time on the investigation. It was factual. He defended himself. The Portuguese media lapped it up. Everyone stood to make money. The McCann machine didn't intervene until there was a shed load of money in the pot. I say the McCann machine because I think it's always been a machine. It has never had and still has no regard for the life of anyone - Madeleine is probably last in the queue.

Goncalo's life has been turned upside down and inside out. His gizzards have been picked over with a fish fork by the UK media. Imagine five years of judicial shite wearing you down and then imagine being offered a quiet retirement to enjoy the sunshine, live your life and put this trauma behind you with a tidy pension earned from a book you wrote - as long as you don't write another and your current book is withdrawn. This could all be offered to Goncalo by a Portuguese court. I wouldn't blame him for doing that.

This is not about Goncalo being a hero. Rather than the Portuguese court playing the long game, I think it's always been the UK playing the long game.

Just my opinion.

by Letterwriter 09.04.15 20:23

If tonight is going to be about unpopular posts, then maybe I can chip in.

I'm not expressing a view on what the verdict might be, but I do feel that some confidence could be misplaced.

I think there is a tendency sometimes for some people to get overexcited/over optimistic about anything that might help resolve this case.

Something I've seen in some comments on this case, and about Tony's when it was in progress, is a tendency to believe that the matter being decided is alleged abduction or all the other rights and wrongs of the whole case.

But it isn't.

Some will have noticed that the cases are brought on very particular, carefully worded issues. Courts look at these issues at in isolation - not taking into account all the matters that this forum would like to be looked at.

Hopefully the outcome will be positive for GA, but just because that's what we'd like, doesn't mean that that's what will happen. And just because we have a view on one issue, that is irrelevant as to the court deciding another.

by jeanmonroe 10.04.15 0:00

Letterwriter wrote:If tonight is going to be about unpopular posts, then maybe I can chip in.

I'm not expressing a view on what the verdict might be, but I do feel that some confidence could be misplaced.

I think there is a tendency sometimes for some people to get overexcited/over optimistic about anything that might help resolve this case.

Something I've seen in some comments on this case, and about Tony's when it was in progress, is a tendency to believe that the matter being decided is alleged abduction or all the other rights and wrongs of the whole case.

But it isn't.

Some will have noticed that the cases are brought on very particular, carefully worded issues. Courts look at these issues at in isolation - not taking into account all the matters that this forum would like to be looked at.

Hopefully the outcome will be positive for GA, but just because that's what we'd like, doesn't mean that that's what will happen. And just because we have a view on one issue, that is irrelevant as to the court deciding another.

I'd like a court, any court, to substantiate, in isolation, if need be, that an 'abduction', let alone 'THE abduction' ever took place.

A High Court judge has ALREADY 'mused' on this 'point', hasn't he, i believe in McCanns vs Bennett.

As for the 'carefully worded issues' (the 'symptoms' caused to the McCanns by GA's book) did they provide a scintilla of 'evidence' of them actually having 'suffered' from ALL of those 'symptoms' other than 'HEARSAY' from their 'witnesses'?

In fact, KM, in her final 'statement' to the court, 'dismissed', herself, over half of her alleged 'symptoms' she said she 'suffered' from.

by Joss 10.04.15 4:15

Daryl Dixon wrote:
plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

I've never seen an official statement that confirms that the McCanns asked Mr Amaral for an out of court settlement. In fact, this scenario in makes no sense whatsoever.

It was reported in the Portugese Press

[color:3f18=000000]The McCanns £1million damages claim against Gonçalo Amaral suffers two delays: The first, apparently due to Snr Amaral's lawyer undergoing surgery and secondly, due to an apparent attempt by the McCanns to negotiate an out of court settlement (as reported in the Portuguese press).

[color:3f18=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id426.html

by Guest 10.04.15 8:29

and secondly, due to an apparent attempt by the McCanns to negotiate an out of court settlement (as reported in the Portuguese press).

Yes.. but which way?

by Daryl Dixon 10.04.15 8:42

Joss wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
plebgate wrote:IMO Rocky will win outright. Why was an offer made for him to settle before the hearing began?

I've never seen an official statement that confirms that the McCanns asked Mr Amaral for an out of court settlement. In fact, this scenario in makes no sense whatsoever.

It was reported in the Portugese Press

The McCanns £1million damages claim against Gonçalo Amaral suffers two delays: The first, apparently due to Snr Amaral's lawyer undergoing surgery and secondly, due to an apparent attempt by the McCanns to negotiate an out of court settlement (as reported in the Portuguese press).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id426.html

Ah yes, reported in the Portuguese Press... then it must be true.

by plebgate 10.04.15 9:06

The Portugese Press and Joana M reported it. Thanks Joss for the link.

As numerous posters have said umpteen zillion times, the abduction was reported in the World press, so it must be true,- even though TMs own solicitor, in a British court of law said that she had no evidence of it actually being the case (words to that effect).

by Joss 12.04.15 6:34

I personally don't see how GA would lose this case seeing as the Court has already found him not to have been libelous in his book, and overturned the removal of the book from the shelves. But this trial is a damages trial because the case of libel has already been determined ages ago in the Court, but because of the purported, disproven damages the McC's and their children have supposedly suffered because of GA's book. It is my opinion the McC's have not proven their case of personal damages against GA for what he wrote about the investigation of the missing child Madeleine, and of what that investigation had found, before his removal from the case. That was not just GA's opinion but the opinion of other officials that were working the case at the time, its just that GA wrote a book concerning the investigation, as others wrote books about the case also, not just GA. I would think the worst hurt inflicted on the parents of a missing child is the fact that their child is missing, and because of the public circus surrounding the case it was only the fault of the McC's for allowing all of that to continue in the public arena. And if you place yourself out there in the public then you get what you get i suppose, and there will always be opinion against you on both sides as to any involvement in a crime with the evidence presented to the public. It happens in all high profile cases. What the McC's were wanting was only opinion skewed favorably toward them IMO, but that is not possible in a free thinking society. In other words they wanted the impossible, in that they wanted the public to see them as not accountable for any wrongdoing in the disappearance of their child, and consequently all the litigation against those who voiced an unfavorable opinion toward them.

by Guest 12.04.15 8:02

Probably the crux of the whole matter is this.

Did dr Amaral cause the Mecs to been seen as involved in their little girls disappearance, or did something, someone else?

In other words: if he had not published his book, would they have been thought of as wrongdoers towards their own child, or would they not

If the answer to that is: yes, regardless of GA they would have been considered as criminals, then he walks free

If not, then not

But strangely, this wasn't (quite) the issue at the Lisbon trial.

The issue there was: were they hurt by what he said.

Even if it was the truth

by Joss 12.04.15 8:12

Portia wrote:Probably the crux of the whole matter is this.

Did dr Amaral cause the Mecs to been seen as involved in their little girls disappearance, or did something, someone else?

In other words: if he had not published his book, would they have been thought of as wrongdoers towards their own child, or would they not

If the answer to that is: yes, regardless of GA they would have been considered as criminals, then he walks free

If not, then not

But strangely, this wasn't (quite) the issue at the Lisbon trial.

The issue there was: were they hurt by what he said.

Even if it was the truth

I agree, that is the issue with the current trial. But they did not prove their case for that in the Court, their case was weak, IMO.

by waiting for justice 12.04.15 11:48

EBeen lurking everyday in the hope of news.

I do wonder if the Mc's silence recently has been down to the Judges open knowledge of the many TV appearances and media coverage of them. Not many depressed, anxious people would be able to keep a smile on thier faces in the circumstances of a missing child.

by HelenMeg 13.04.15 11:10

Surely cant be much longer?? I wonder how soon we will hear after the result has been communicated ....

will it be leaked - or will either of the two parties communicate it ?
Depends upon the result... but I still think GA may bide his time.

by HelenMeg 14.04.15 10:14

I read yesterday in an old Daily Wail article that the verdict will be read out in Court before being sent in written format to both parties. Therefore, we should get to hear as soon as a date is set for the Court to read out the verdict.

It seems to be taking so long - why?