Appeal in favour of Gonçalo Amaral

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - thanks for the heads up. Sounds like that is the most likely cause.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yep, you're right. Have got in via [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Madeleine McCann’s parents threaten legal action on people caught selling Gonzalo Amaral's book in UK

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

How disappointing - never mind I'll just have to buy it online from an outlet outside their jurisdiction 

Somebody pointed out that there must be an injunction on the Gaspar statements and this is the legal underpinning of the threat. Hopefully, some in the media have had enough of whitewashing the reputations of...well, people who don't deserve a whitewashing.

Somebody pointed out that there must be an injunction on the Gaspar statements and this is the legal underpinning of the threat.

If that be the case, although I've never seen anything from an authoritative source to suggest such a thing, easily rectified.  Re-print the book with any reference to the Gaspar statements removed.  Job jobbed!

Too late anyway - the world and his wife are already aware.

Madeleine McCann’s parents threaten legal action on people caught selling Gonzalo Amaral's book in UK.
-----------------------

And if 'people' bulk buy and give the books away, gratis, what then?

Poor Pamela G is gonna be a bizzy bee, having to 'check out' all those ......car boot sales!

Pray silence for poor little Isabelle Duarte, who is at this moment most likely frantically searching for the key to that damn lock-up padlock where she dumped all those book copies harvested from the bookshelves whilst culling Dr. Amaral.


Hope she hasn't burned them... ooops!  Who's going to pay damages now?

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

slightly ot, but hey!

Great link! It didn't come up on my rich d. Hall subscription on youtube for some reason, so I.m grateful you posted it, thank you x

Has that 'doyen' of underage girls protection, JG, 'commented' on GA's 'win' yet?

Martin Crunt?

Will the Daily/Sunday Express be 'demanding' their 'damages' payouts, to the McS and all their 'friends', back?

They only printed GA's/PJ 'conclusions', after all.

@TonyBennet What may I ask would be the " legal arguments" that their lawyer could present should they counter-sue; surely all legal arguments were considered and presented for this trial ( and the previous ). Not seeing how the McCanns can move forwards with this, unless I'm missing something? Plus would they not have to clear the decks so to speak and pay up ' costs '  AND release Amarals "property"  etc before anything could be put in motion? 

Otherwise this will just go on and on 
and on and on 
a bit like the Met! 

In my opinion it's ' fruitless '...

Thank you for the link. I've just watched it and it amazes me how Richard is so on the ball with his videos!

A tad worried about Clarence, his blood pressure must be through the internet roof? 

  He certainly can talk the talk, wonder if he gives "presentations" to the "team" which monitors the Internet? 
Strange he admits that they have them in place? Questions I would like to hear him answer;

"Why the need for those 'monitors'?
"What is their exact role as a monitor"? 
"Whose idea was it to introduce "monitoring"?
"When, where & how did they recruit these 'monitors'"? 
"Do they undergo any training"?
"What is the expected outcome for such monitoring"?
"Who does the "monitoring team" report to"?
"Does any remuneration to a 'monitoring team member' exchange hands & if so who funds this"?
"What exactly are they monitoring"?
"Is there any prerequisite to become a 'monitor'"?
"Do 'monitors' have to comply with a certain criteria"?
"When the 'monitors' have 'monitored' said Internet, where is this information shared/stored"?
"Do they comply with data-protection laws"?
"Are the 'monitors' monitored"?
"Did they expect to find Madeleine through 'monitoring'"? 
"How does he sleep at night"?

I'm sure I could think of a few more, pity I would have liked to have been in the audience!

MayMuse wrote:Thank you for the link. I've just watched it and it amazes me how Richard is so on the ball with his videos!

A tad worried about Clarence, his blood pressure must be through the internet roof? 

  He certainly can talk the talk, wonder if he gives "presentations" to the "team" which monitors the Internet? 
Strange he admits that they have them in place? Questions I would like to hear him answer;

"Why the need for those 'monitors'?
"What is their exact role as a monitor"? 
"Whose idea was it to introduce "monitoring"?
"When, where & how did they recruit these 'monitors'"? 
"Do they undergo any training"?
"What is the expected outcome for such monitoring"?
"Who does the "monitoring team" report to"?
"Does any remuneration to a 'monitoring team member' exchange hands & if so who funds this"?
"What exactly are they monitoring"?
"Is there any prerequisite to become a 'monitor'"?
"Do 'monitors' have to comply with a certain criteria"?
"When the 'monitors' have 'monitored' said Internet, where is this information shared/stored"?
"Do they comply with data-protection laws"?
"Are the 'monitors' monitored"?
"Did they expect to find Madeleine through 'monitoring'"? 
"How does he sleep at night"?

I'm sure I could think of a few more, pity I would have liked to have been in the audience!

There's a model for this sort of thing.

Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

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


Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. [...] 

In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. 
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.”  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”  Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and then amplified in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

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

pennylane wrote:

It seems to me their relentless and vexatious attempt to destroy Goncalo Amaral, has ultimately resulted in them destroying themselves.   Karma!

And a recent photo of the gruesome twosome would tend to confirm your view.   Their obsession with Amaral which has been incessant for the past 9 years had to take its toll. Plus (if guilty) the constant fear that the MET might actually find their spine and direct their firepower at them.   Gerry (the consummate narcissist) has been able to handle this much better - and may even enjoy it.  Kate on the other hand looks as though she has aged 20 years since those bright, smiley fashion-shoots taken just days after Maddie's disappearance.

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

Who would want to be carrying their load of guilt?

MayMuse wrote:@Tony Bennett  >>>  What may I ask would be the " legal arguments" that their lawyer could present should they counter-sue; surely all legal arguments were considered and presented for this trial (and the previous). Not seeing how the McCanns can move forwards with this, unless I'm missing something? Plus would they not have to clear the decks so to speak and pay up 'costs'  AND release Amarals "property"  etc before anything could be put in motion? 

Otherwise this will just go on and on - and on and on - a bit like the Met! 

In my opinion it's 'fruitless'...

@ MayMuse

1. With reference to the McCanns' appeal to the Supreme Court, the McCanns did this before. They lost in the Portuguese Court of Appeal on October 2010 and appealed. But the Supreme Court in May 2011 confirmed exactly what the Appeal Court said - and both courts, even back then, ordered the McCanns to pay all the costs. The Supreme Court is surely likely to reach the same verdict again - unless the British government can somehow exert political pressure (once again) to achieve the 'right' result.

2. Banning Goncalo Amaral's book in Britain?  Quote from the Mirror:

Madeleine McCann’s parents have warned anyone caught selling ex-police chief Gonzalo Amaral's book in the UK would face legal action. A spokesman for the couple warned anyone caught selling the book in the UK would face legal action.

REPLY: The judgment in Portugal only applies in Portugal. In Britain, as I've explained elsewhere on the forum, we have some of the strictest libel laws in Europe - indeed in the world - despite our reputation for allowing 'free speech'. And they've been able to hire libel lawyers who boasted that they were 'Britain's most feared libel lawyers'. I would have thought that this is pretty academic since (a) there is no published English version of the book yet and (b) it is available in a translation by 'AnneEsse' on this forum, on the forum-owner's own blog, and in many other places on the net.    

3. Amaral's claim for compensation     Quote from the Mirror:

Amaral is set to demand compensation from Gerry and Kate McCann after he won a libel court case appeal. The 56-year-old claims the couple cost him money and harmed his reputation during the long-running legal battle. Portuguese legal sources say the compensation bill could run into the “hundreds of thousands of Euros”. The ex-officer’s lawyer Miguel Cruz Rodrigues announced plans to sue the McCanns just hours after the surprise libel U-turn. He said: “We are going to advance with a compensation claim against the McCanns. My client has suffered years of prejudice and losses.” Mr Rodrigues added Amaral has suffered “years of financial losses in which his good name has been called into question.”

REPLY: I wonder if this might just be understandable 'sabre-rattling' by Goncalo Amaral's legal team? He would have formidable difficulties, I fear, in claiming compensation, because the facts are so wildly in dispute. Did the dogs 'prove' there was a corpse in Apartment G5A? - or not? Everything surely turns on that. Surely Amaral would have to prove that Madeleine died, prove that the McCanns arranged to hide her body, and prove that they have lied to cover this up. It would still be a formidable task - unless he is sitting on evidence which he has not yet disclosed. Also, where does he sue? Portugal? Or England?

Amaral could go after them because they were vindictive.

Kate did want him to know fear.

Just watched Richard's excellent compilation of Clarence's stand up performance in Aus.

One fact which CM highlighted twice was that before KM's 7 Sept arguido interview, she had already been interviewed 4 times. Only 2 previous interviews appear in the files, so the PJ have held back 2.

skyrocket wrote:Just watched Richard's excellent compilation of Clarence's stand up performance in Aus.

One fact which CM highlighted twice was that before KM's 7 Sept arguido interview, she had already been interviewed 4 times. Only 2 previous interviews appear in the files, so the PJ have held back 2.

Unless Clarence Mitchell was lying... 

Fact or fiction?
 
‘One fact which CM highlighted twice was that before KM's 7 Sept arguido interview, she had already been interviewed 4 times.’
 
Only really once on 4^th May.
 
The 6^th September just carried on to the 7^th although she was given arguida status before the interview continued on the 7^th.
 
‘At this moment, and because it is late, 11 p.m., the interview was interrupted and will be continued on the next morning.’
 
   
Was it ever explained why there was not a second statement from KM on 10^th May when GM gave his second statement, or was there and it has been withheld?

@TB - Haha! Indeed!

Getting personal, which I avoid doing normally but as it's only old CM ......  he's got rather rotund - bit too much of the good life I reckon. In the Aus clips he reminded me of an old bantam cockerel a friend used to own. It used to strut backwards and forwards with its chest puffed out - its self-importance far outweighing its size. It used to hide behind items in the garden and attack your ankles. 

He says he monitors the anti blogs, so I'll leave it at that!

@DougD - I stand corrected, you're right. Depends how CM defines an interview. I'm sure there must have been an interview with Kate around the 10 May - all the others (T7) seem to have been interviewed again at this time.

Skyrocket:
 
‘Depends how CM defines an interview’
 
He doesn’t actually state ‘interviewed by PJ’ although he implies it.
    
Mail, Mirror, Guardian, Times,…….. that’s four interviews!!

MayMuse wrote:Thank you for the link. I've just watched it and it amazes me how Richard is so on the ball with his videos!

A tad worried about Clarence, his blood pressure must be through the internet roof? 

  He certainly can talk the talk, wonder if he gives "presentations" to the "team" which monitors the Internet? 
Strange he admits that they have them in place? Questions I would like to hear him answer;

"Why the need for those 'monitors'?
"What is their exact role as a monitor"? 
"Whose idea was it to introduce "monitoring"?
"When, where & how did they recruit these 'monitors'"? 
"Do they undergo any training"?
"What is the expected outcome for such monitoring"?
"Who does the "monitoring team" report to"?
"Does any remuneration to a 'monitoring team member' exchange hands & if so who funds this"?
"What exactly are they monitoring"?
"Is there any prerequisite to become a 'monitor'"?
"Do 'monitors' have to comply with a certain criteria"?
"When the 'monitors' have 'monitored' said Internet, where is this information shared/stored"?
"Do they comply with data-protection laws"?
"Are the 'monitors' monitored"?
"Did they expect to find Madeleine through 'monitoring'"? 
"How does he sleep at night"?

I'm sure I could think of a few more, pity I would have liked to have been in the audience!

That's brilliant, and made me laugh. My favourite has to be; Are the "Moniters" monitored ? Cheers.

skyrocket wrote:@TB - Haha! Indeed!

Getting personal, which I avoid doing normally but as it's only old CM...he's got rather rotund - bit too much of the good life I reckon. In the Aus clips he reminded me of an old bantam cockerel a friend used to own. It used to strut backwards and forwards with its chest puffed out - its self-importance far outweighing its size. It used to hide behind items in the garden and attack your ankles. 

@ skyrocket  

Now you come to mention it, there is more than a passing resemblance!  >>> [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I always thought he was rather too 'cocksure'

GA said that the victory was only possible thanks to the support he has received, “from Portuguese citizens and other nationalities but principally from British subjects, including British police colleagues” - all of whom he thanks “from the bottom of my heart”.
---------------------

Could the 'scrolling headlines' boss possibly put the above statement/quote from GA on the scrolling headlines 'banner'?

Thanks, in advance.

And let's not forget the young mum who made it all possible, Leanne Baulch. When Madeleine McCann disappeared, in 2007, Leanne wasn't much older than Madeleine would have been, today. This young mum was slaughtered by those who cannot stand truth and justice. Even over the last week or so, despite Leanne being out of the public eye, there was an attempt, by some, to vilify her. I wonder why these attempts raised their ugly heads around the same time as the other McCann stories were hitting the headlines?

Lianne, you are a credit to people of your own age, and beyond. I don't know you, personally,  but I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, for what you did, and what you put yourself through, all for a man who wanted nothing more than truth and justice.  


THE TRUTH IS LIKE A LION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND IT. LET IT LOOSE AND IT WILL DEFEND ITSELF -  St Augustine

MayMuse wrote:Thank you for the link. I've just watched it and it amazes me how Richard is so on the ball with his videos!

A tad worried about Clarence, his blood pressure must be through the internet roof? 

  He certainly can talk the talk, wonder if he gives "presentations" to the "team" which monitors the Internet? 
Strange he admits that they have them in place? Questions I would like to hear him answer;

"Why the need for those 'monitors'?
"What is their exact role as a monitor"? 
"Whose idea was it to introduce "monitoring"?
"When, where & how did they recruit these 'monitors'"? 
"Do they undergo any training"?
"What is the expected outcome for such monitoring"?
"Who does the "monitoring team" report to"?
"Does any remuneration to a 'monitoring team member' exchange hands & if so who funds this"?
"What exactly are they monitoring"?
"Is there any prerequisite to become a 'monitor'"?
"Do 'monitors' have to comply with a certain criteria"?
"When the 'monitors' have 'monitored' said Internet, where is this information shared/stored"?
"Do they comply with data-protection laws"?
"Are the 'monitors' monitored"?
"Did they expect to find Madeleine through 'monitoring'"? 
"How does he sleep at night"?

I'm sure I could think of a few more, pity I would have liked to have been in the audience!

'Slimy Lizards' make the best 'monitors'!

Bonus: Lizard Monitors 'speak' with 'forked' tongues.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"WHO SAID THAT"?

Appeal court judges reject McCanns' ‘libel win’

Almost a year to the day that former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral learnt that the parents of missing Madeleine McCann had successfully sued him over his book “The Truth of the Lie”, three appeal court judges have ruled that there is essentially no case to answer.

Ferreira de Almeida, Catarina Manso and Alexandrina Branquinho have unanimously overturned the ruling of a lower court, freeing Amaral from a €500,000 bill for damages and another €106,000 in legal costs.

The McCanns, who were originally suing Amaral for €1.2 million, are “almost certain” to appeal. But the fact that the judges were united over their 16-page decision speaks volumes.

The question, they explained, centres on “appreciating an alleged illegality”.

Amaral’s thesis - that Madeleine “was not abducted, but had died accidentally” and that her parents, knowing this, had “covered up” the facts using “the theory of kidnap to elude” was nothing new.

It came from evidence contained in police files on the case, and it was the basis for the couple being made “arguidos” in the original investigation.

The judges thus accepted Amaral’s contention that he wrote “Truth of the Lie” “to expose his vision of the facts”, saying that it followed that “publication of the said book has to be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to an opinion”.

But even more, the panel stated that it was the McCanns who “multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media” to the point that “one must conclude that it was they who voluntarily limited their rights to reservation and the intimacy of private life”.

In very stilted legal jargon, the bottom line is that the judges basically rated Amaral’s right to an opinion on the same level as anyone else’s.

Picking up the story, the Daily Mail managed to speak to McCann defence lawyer Isabel Duarte who said both she and her clients were “obviously disappointed”.

Duarte added however that she was not surprised, as “one of the judges ruled in favour of a previous appeal overturning a ban on the book”.

Indeed, McCann lawyers tried to remove this judge (Catarina Manso), altogether. A legal source has calculated that the shenanigans “cost some two months of time, which explains why this decision took so long”.

As Público explains, copies of the “Truth of the Lie” can now once again go on sale (which television reports suggest will happen next week), as can the DVD film documentary, the property of Valentim de Carvalho Filmes and television station TVI.

The panel’s decision, Duarte told the Mail, was “an appreciation of the law and not the facts”.

“We can appeal to the Supreme Court which we will do as soon as we have instructions from our clients,” she said. “We obviously hope the appeal will succeed. The McCanns never received any compensation money after the original decision, although the money was deposited at the court.”

This is something Amaral will very likely be addressing with his own lawyers, as he has had his assets frozen since the McCanns launched their civil action seven years ago.

Day-to-day life for the former cop has not been easy in the interim, but he has been buoyed by support - much of it coming from the UK - which last year saw over £50,000 raised towards his legal costs via an appeal launched by a budding British criminology student.

Amaral’s stance throughout the ordeal has been to insist on his right to freedom of expression - though he has intimated that ‘when all this is over’, he may well be filing civil charges of his own.

Speaking to Nova Gente magazine last year, he said: “Each thing in its own time.”

It won’t only be the McCanns he plans to sue, “but their group of friends and other people and entities”, he said, stressing “there is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children which caused direct damages to many people, not only myself”.

Members of the Ocean Club staff were fired, he said, “many of them unjustly, passing from mere employees and heads of their families to suspects in a criminal investigation when they had nothing to do with the matter”.

Coincidentally, Tuesday’s ‘news of the appeal result in Portugal’ came as papers in UK were highlighting remarks made by “the detective in charge of the search for Madeleine”, Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Duthie - a new name in the British-led inquiry - who said police “still believe Madeleine could be found alive”.

Glossing over the fact that British press has given the long-running probe by the Metropolitan Police until October before funding is pulled altogether (click here), Duthie told reporters that Operation Grange (so far costing British taxpayers in excess of £12 million) could be extended by additional funding, as there is “always a possibility that we will find Madeleine”.

Nevertheless, this week is one for the Amaral camp.

The former detective said Tuesday’s news was “a tremendous and important victory for the right to opinion, freedom of expression and democracy”.

He also said he was “fully aware” that the victory was only possible thanks to the support he has received, “from Portuguese citizens and other nationalities but principally from British subjects, including British police colleagues” - all of whom he thanks “from the bottom of my heart”.

“The victory belongs to those who believe in truth, honesty and the realisation of justice,” he concluded.

But, with social media buzzing and articles throughout the world’s press, there is no getting away from the fact that Tuesday’s news came just weeks before the ninth anniversary of three-year-old Madeleine’s baffling disappearance.

Despite all the millions spent, all the agony of lawsuits and strife, all the pain of all those involved, no one seems any closer to the hidden nugget that will finally lift the lid of this extraordinary mystery.

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

UPDATE WEDNESDAY: Expresso has revealed that Amaral's legal team does indeed intend to press ahead with a counter-suit against the McCanns.

“We are going to advance with a compensation claim against the McCanns", lawyer Miguel Cruz Rodrigues has told the paper. “My client has suffered years of prejudice and losses.”

Amarl will be seeking "damages for what have been years of financial losses" in which his "good name has been called into question,” said the lawyer.

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

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Some suckers may chip in, but the overwhelming majority either don't care enough or simply don't believe the McCanns any more. .

I wouldn't have thought the  British people had anything left to 'chip in,' particularly in the vein that the majority are in debt for the duration of their lives.

Verdi wrote:

Amaral’s thesis - that Madeleine “was not abducted, but had died accidentally” and that her parents, knowing this, had “covered up” the facts using “the theory of kidnap to elude” was nothing new.


.

As stated in a riposte to this on another thread, this hypothesis simply doesn't make sense. If indeed Madeleine had died accidentally, why would any sane minded person feel the need to cover up the facts by disposing of her body and concocting a spurious abduction story, thereby creating a potential murder enquiry. The only logical reason for disposing of her body and concocting a spurious abduction story was to avoid an autopsy which would determine that her death was not accidental.

When I first read this, the only reason I could conceive of for Goncala putting forward this hypothesis in his book  was that he had libel on his mind, because if he didn't, then the rest of the book wasn't worth reading any more than Pat Brown's theory that Gerry McCann could conceivably have walked through British customs with Madeleine in a suitcase.

Goncala was always going to win his appeal for the same reasons he had won the previous one. The McCanns were ill advised to instigate this action in the first instance by lawyers who were only interested in extracting extortionate legal fees from their 'Self Preservation Fund.'

Mention of Pat Brown.

Will she now also be able to 're-market' her 'banned' book?

Realist wrote:

As stated in a riposte to this on another thread, this hypothesis simply doesn't make sense. If indeed Madeleine had died accidentally, why would any sane minded person feel the need to cover up the facts by disposing of her body and concocting a spurious abduction story, thereby creating a potential murder enquiry. The only logical reason for disposing of her body and concocting a spurious abduction story was to avoid an autopsy which would determine that her death was not accidental.

Hmmm... no.

She could have died accidentally and an autopsy shown something else not nice.