Appeal in favour of Gonçalo Amaral

Realist wrote:

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.'

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I think the Mirror published the story of a threat to take legal action against the book sellers as a deliberate ploy.

MSM has had enough of these 2 and is looking for surreptitious ways to bury them - without risking breach of any Carter Ruck super-inaudibles. What better way to stir up interest than with a message - 'you hadn't better do this, it's naughty and probably illegal'. Try it on the kids

jeanmonroe wrote:Mention of Pat Brown.

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

pennylane wrote:

Realist wrote:

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.'

Sorry but I disagree.  Sedation and neglect of 3 toddlers leading to the unintentional death of one of them is negligent homicide at the least.  An autopsy would have left them up the creak without a paddle and in a foreign country to boot.  Although the death could be deemed unintentional, the charges would be very serious indeed, and not just where Madeleine sad fate was concerned, but also the twins!  The repercussions would have obliterated their family, their finances, and both their future careers.

imo

jeanmonroe wrote:"There’s going to be a riot when news of all this reaches people back in the UK . . . There’s no way our government will stand for this." said KM 'confidently' when 'asked' about GA's stunning libel appeal victory, against her, in Portugal.

pennylane wrote:I'm not ignoring any of that, but I believe this is what happened on the evening of 3rd May 2007.  I think they had help from their friends re checking times, as they all feared neglect repercussions following the possible arrest of the McCanns, however (imo) Jane Tanner is the only one that went out on a limb in a big way. 

I've always said there is a missing piece of the puzzle, hence the government help, and I think the confusion comes from trying to link it all to Maddie's demise.  That's jmho 

pennylane wrote:




I don't think so and where does negligence enter into the equation. I think its already been established that the Portuguese authorities are far more relaxed on leaving children unattended than in the US and UK. Where's the evidence of sedation, they didn't even bother testing the remaining children. I think the negligence factor was more emphasised  by the McCanns than the investigating authorities, if you think about it, there had to be an element of negligence for an abduction to have occurred. No negligence, no abduction.  Even if there were elements of sedation involved, it would have only amounted to small amounts of innocuous drugs, after all, they'd hardly have been lacing them up with diamorphine, would they now.




If the death were deemed accidental, they wouldn't have suffered any legal repercussions. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unintentional,' is this a euphemism for 'manslaughter.' Of course an autopsy would have caused them problems, not due to the death being accidental, but due to the fact that it wasn't accidental, that's why they felt the need to dispose of the body and concoct the kidnapping scam.


 

This I totally agree with. In the event of what transpired not being accidental, they would have lost everything, that's why they gambled with disposing of the body etc. As far as they were concerned, they had nothing to lose by adopting this gambit. Fortunately for them, their luck held and the Portuguese police unbelievably, initially gave them the benefit of the doubt. I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al. Its far more likely that Madeleine died from a good ole fashioned whack from either Gerry or Kate McCann which would have been determined by an autopsy.

Now there may well be the odd sympathetic coroner prepared to rule the aforementioned as being accidental, but there would be a school of thought who would subscribe to the fact that most would rule it manslaughter, culminating in them losing everything, including their other children. The stakes were indeed high and anyone believing that they enlisted comparative strangers to assist in the disposal of the body etc must still believe in Father Christmas.

Tony Bennett wrote:

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?

Realist wrote:

pennylane wrote:




I don't think so and where does negligence enter into the equation. I think its already been established that the Portuguese authorities are far more relaxed on leaving children unattended than in the US and UK. Where's the evidence of sedation, they didn't even bother testing the remaining children. I think the negligence factor was more emphasised  by the McCanns than the investigating authorities, if you think about it, there had to be an element of negligence for an abduction to have occurred. No negligence, no abduction.  Even if there were elements of sedation involved, it would have only amounted to small amounts of innocuous drugs, after all, they'd hardly have been lacing them up with diamorphine, would they now.




If the death were deemed accidental, they wouldn't have suffered any legal repercussions. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unintentional,' is this a euphemism for 'manslaughter.' Of course an autopsy would have caused them problems, not due to the death being accidental, but due to the fact that it wasn't accidental, that's why they felt the need to dispose of the body and concoct the kidnapping scam.


 

This I totally agree with. In the event of what transpired not being accidental, they would have lost everything, that's why they gambled with disposing of the body etc. As far as they were concerned, they had nothing to lose by adopting this gambit. Fortunately for them, their luck held and the Portuguese police unbelievably, initially gave them the benefit of the doubt. I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al. Its far more likely that Madeleine died from a good ole fashioned whack from either Gerry or Kate McCann which would have been determined by an autopsy.

Now there may well be the odd sympathetic coroner prepared to rule the aforementioned as being accidental, but there would be a school of thought who would subscribe to the fact that most would rule it manslaughter, culminating in them losing everything, including their other children. The stakes were indeed high and anyone believing that they enlisted comparative strangers to assist in the disposal of the body etc must still believe in Father Christmas.

whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this:  "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'



And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children, 

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.

pennylane wrote:









Firstly, there is no evidence of sedation and even if there were, it wouldn't legally equate to homicide. I'm presuming from your use of the word 'homicide' that you are an American citizen.

pennylane wrote:lol realist, you're mixing the quotes

Realist wrote:

pennylane wrote:lol realist, you're mixing the quotes

I know, but every time I reply to you, your writing doesn't appear. Perhaps you are an apparition

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this:  "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'



And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children, 

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.

Ladyinred wrote:Can we stay on topic, please.

whodunit wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Can we stay on topic, please.

I'm sorry. No more from me.

whodunit wrote:





1. You said 'we' can safely dispense with these theories. You are not allowed to speak for all of us. As long as the Gaspar statements exist nobody is going to 'dispense with' these theories not matter how much you dismissively wave your hands around.

You do appear to have some weird expressions, 'waving my hands around' when actually, one of my hands is holding a cigarette and t'uther is typing, (I'm a one finger typist)

2. My main point was you were derisively lumping pedophile theories in with 'aliens from mars' as if pedophiles do not exist and as if any theories regarding them are 'wild'. You were attempting to discredit these theories by painting them with the 'conspiracy theory' brush, a well known tactic...

Again, you appear to be misinterpreting my statements, I never stated that paedophiles didn't exist, what I stated, or intimated, was that there is no tangible evidence of them existing in the McCann's case, other than that of the spurious variety from the McCanns themselves. 

As for the Gaspars, they may have dropped the ball insofar as reporting the incident at the time but it took a lot of guts to come forward with information like that, at that time in the midst of world-wide pro McCann media coverage. Their information WAS NOT passed on to the PJ before the case was shelved so they had no way of taking it into account in their investigation. As we know from the UK authorities kid glove handling of Jimmy Savile police authorities not giving credence to witness statements is no measure of it's credibility, and you using the lack of interest from police to dismiss it is an appeal to authority I'm never prepared to go along with.

I think you will find and I stand to be corrected, that at the time the Gaspars finally declared their revelations, the media were in their crucifying the McCann mode prior to be gagged by their lawyers. 

NB, I've just read your missive, Ladyinred, I'll now desist

jeanmonroe wrote: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!

aiyoyo wrote:


The Mc's threat to sue and suppress the book in the UK is but a defiance retaliation to Dr Amaral victory more than anything else.  They must realise their appeal has the real possibility of being thrown out at cursory stage and they are just being recalcitrance about it.  

Pyewacket wrote:

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.

.......but who monitors the monitors that monitor the monitors............?
JohnyT