McCanns demand Amaral divorce to be rewarded

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

Can you say what the speed of resolution would be in this particular case please?

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

Can you say what the speed of resolution would be in this particular case please?

My dear Aquila, who knows?  But if say three months were spent in arguing the toss, a month to draw up a formal agreement and 3 months for the court to ratify the agreement (possibly a touch optimistic) then around 6 months.  Then payment of agreed sum to the McCann fund costs settled and over and done with.

worriedmum wrote:But can you explain why would they want it to be 'done and dusted' if they brought the case in the first place, and expected to win, jean-pierre? Or even 'my dear' jean-pierre?


and to quote you in your earlier post,
''How would Dr Amaral be able to claim that his human rights and his 'right to a fair trial" have been breached when most of the delays to the trial have been occasioned by him ''

Did you actually offer proof of your assertion, my dear?

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

As you are now calling people on the forum 'my dear' can I just say, mon cher, jean-pierre (poetry) what Sr. Amaral refused to do, along with his 'co-accused' was to accept an out of court settlement deal. It was offered and rejected. There is still no published evidence of which party offered/was open to the idea of such an out of court settlement - remember there's more than Sr. Amaral and the McCanns in this case, there's a television company.

Sr. Amaral has obviously turned down the offer and yet still no mention of the television company. This trial reported in UK media is all about the McCanns v Goncalo Amaral, yet it isn't.

You've mentioned delays particular to Sr. Amaral - and you've not really done a very good job of things to specifically identify what Sr. Amaral was culpable of in terms of delay tactics. You've also not explained the 'out of court settlement' offer other than in terms of this is what you consider to be normal practice.

Get down to specifics mon cher, jean-pierre.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, it was the Mcs that wanted to settle, I am pretty certain that was the case, it got debated for few days at that time.  Just wish it wasn't so drawn out all the time, I guess Goncalo is used to the system?  joyce1938

Whichever way Joyce, there are plusses and minuses.

For the plaintiffs, there is an advantage of speed of resolution and certainty, because there would be no appeal from an out of court settlement - all done and dusted.  But a lower settlement than they could win in court.

For the respondent there is less advantage.  Unless the figure offered is lower than the judge is likely to award on losing the case.   There would be no appeal. So the settlement figure would need to be a substantial discount to make it worth considering.  I am not at all surprised that Dr Amaral chose to take his chance with the court.

As you are now calling people on the forum 'my dear' can I just say, mon cher, jean-pierre (poetry) what Sr. Amaral refused to do, along with his 'co-accused' was to accept an out of court settlement deal. It was offered and rejected. There is still no published evidence of which party offered/was open to the idea of such an out of court settlement - remember there's more than Sr. Amaral and the McCanns in this case, there's a television company.

Sr. Amaral has obviously turned down the offer and yet still no mention of the television company. This trial reported in UK media is all about the McCanns v Goncalo Amaral, yet it isn't.

You've mentioned delays particular to Sr. Amaral - and you've not really done a very good job of things to specifically identify what Sr. Amaral was culpable of in terms of delay tactics. You've also not explained the 'out of court settlement' offer other than in terms of this is what you consider to be normal practice.

Get down to specifics mon cher, jean-pierre.

Yes, quite the poet.  And "cher" is fine.

The verdict as you well know covered all three defendants:

Dr Amaral:    The court ordered a payment of E 250k to each of the the McCanns, and E 68K in interest. 

Publisher:     The court also prohibited any more sales of the book, and gave the publisher 60 days to return all existing copies.

TV1             It also ordered Valentim de Carvalho, who produced a TV documentary based on the book, not to sell any more copies of the film.

And of course he was at liberty to turn down an offer, in the same way as the McCanns were under an implied obligation to explore an out of court settlement.

Re Delays - well that was because he DID introduce a number of delays, including an attempt to exclude Madeleine from the action on the grounds that she was a ward of court.  It was of course his right to use whatever delaying tactics he wanted, but given e was widely tipped to "win" the action I found the delays mildly puzzling - especially sacking his lawyer on the very day of the resumption of the case. 

As faras it being "McCann V Amaral" - why was that odd?  He wrote the book, and made most of the money.  The publisher and TV company were not the author of the book and film that were found by the Portuguese Court to have been damaging.

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:And good morning to you Aquila.

I do apologise - the amount of interest was actually set at E 106k.

This is because it is normal practice for a court to add interest to a damages award from the time of the original action.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:And good morning to you Aquila.

I do apologise - the amount of interest was actually set at E 106k.

This is because it is normal practice for a court to add interest to a damages award from the time of the original action.

Oh come on...you really have to do better than that mon cher.

Please also explain how 106k euros in intererest could possibly correlate to the frozen assets of the alleged income of Goncalo Amaral's book when his income from the book was seized?

The Madeleine Fund with all its millions hasn't amassed interest anywhere near that sum.

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Monday 16th June 2014.  Dr Amaral announced to the court on the day of the trial that he had sacked his lawyer Vitor Santos Olivera and applied for the case to be adjourned.

Do I need to go on?

Please give a comprehensive list of all delays to the trial. This would help everyone.

worriedmum wrote:

aquila wrote:

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:Monday 16th June 2014.  Dr Amaral announced to the court on the day of the trial that he had sacked his lawyer Vitor Santos Olivera and applied for the case to be adjourned.

Do I need to go on?

Please give a comprehensive list of all delays to the trial. This would help everyone.

Have we had this list yet, please jean-pierre?

Also, can you tell me what point you are trying to make?

worriedmum wrote:Okay, I have just read where Tony says the trial has taken six years five months.

Amaral sacked his lawyer. He wanted clarification about Madeleine's status as a ward of court. His lawyer was ill.


Have you added up these 'delays'? Would the ECHR expect a defendant to be inactive and non-responsive for the duration of a case in order for their submission to it to be considered valid?

worriedmum wrote:jean-pierre quote ''And whether the claimant had contributed to the delays, causing adjournments for reasons outside the control of the court.  I would suggest that he did contribute to the delays and therefore it is unlikely that he would even be able to bring a claim to the court.

Looking at the facts dispassionately, I cannot see how he could have a valid claim that his rights had been breached, but maybe you can see an alternative viewpoint.''unquote

How would you describe illness ?

worriedmum wrote:But are you still including illness as 'a delay', my dear?

quote '' I would suggest that he did contribute to the delays and therefore it is unlikely that he would even be able to bring a claim to the court.''

Five years seems like a long time to me...

jean-pierre.t50 wrote:

aquila wrote:

Amy Dean wrote:It does look as if there was only one delay which could be described as being GA's "fault".

It doesn't look like anything. It looks like there is nothing reported on the 'libel' trial and there is no accurate reportage of exactly what has gone on in terms of delay to the trial.

I'd like jp to list the delays on both sides. I'm not interested in bashing anyone's opinion. I'm interested in getting to the truth.

Well the first delay was on the 11th December 2009. 

[color:d55c=000000]"From JdN 11 December 2009

Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer is in quarantine at home, after learning that an employee of his office has influenza A. António Cabrita has requested the postponement of the trial of the book "The Truth About The Lie."

The first session of the trial process against the book by the former coordinator of the Judicial Police, is scheduled for 9:30 pm today, at the 7th Circuit Court Civil Court of Lisbon, in the Courthouse. The prevention of Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer can dictate the postponement of the trial, which would then be likely to occur in about 21 days."

Adjourned to Jan 12 2010

worriedmum wrote:But are you still including illness as 'a delay', my dear?

quote '' I would suggest that he did contribute to the delays and therefore it is unlikely that he would even be able to bring a claim to the court.''

Five years seems like a long time to me...

Did the illnesses cause delays to the case?  Was this a delay caused by the Portuguese Court system?

Libel cases - time scale between 1 year and 7 years, so in fairness its at the upper end.  But IMO Dr Amaral cannot claim that his human rights have been breached.  That is my view - yours may differ.  Hey ho.