Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

by **Jill Havern** 20.04.16 6:27

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

Joana posted this on the CMOMM facebook page:

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

Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] & [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Many thanks Joana roses

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

Get 'em Gonçalo! shark

by hentie 20.04.16 7:19

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, the very man who has done the most to find out what happened to their daughter Madeleine.

They should have been applauding him. Instead K wanted him to be miserable and feel fear.

I hope she remembers that remark.
Amaral deserves the right to address the many wrongs he's had to endure over a very long time.

by Guest 20.04.16 8:08

If he goes after them (and he should) then they will almost certainly up the ante with a supreme court appeal.

And that will be dragged out for another couple of years.

Anyway, good luck Goncalo.

by whatsupdoc 20.04.16 8:35

hentie wrote:Dr Gonçalo Amaral, the very man who has done the most to find out what happened to their daughter Madeleine.

They should have been applauding him. Instead K wanted him to be miserable and feel fear.

I hope she remembers that remark.
Amaral deserves the right to address the many wrongs he's had to endure over a very long time.

Agreed...some nasty remarks from KM in her book about GA who was trying to help find Madeleine. The McCanns needed to keep the story going that Madeleine could still be alive and hence keep the Fund going.

IMO the MSM has done a disgraceful job of character assassination against GA and he has every right to sue the papers and get full large scale apologies as well as suing the McCanns.

I feel sorry for the twins. I don't think the parents gave much thought about the effects on them.

I wonder how the tapas members will fit in when it's payback time? Will they have a change of heart?

by hentie 20.04.16 8:45

Yes whatsupdoc I feel sorry for the twins too.
They were used as props in the early days.
After visit by SS their faces were obscured.
There will be 9 years plus of matter related to the case that they will be able to access when older.
What on earth will they think when they see some of the remarks made by their parents.
Will they disagree with their parents behaviour or will they condone it?
Either way it will shape them and their future.

by sallypelt 20.04.16 10:16

I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

by Guest 20.04.16 10:36

sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

I think Kate may regret the comment about wanting Amaral to know fear.

I hope he goes after them.

by aiyoyo 20.04.16 10:59

sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

Provided he can find a law firm in UK that will take his case against the Mcs.

Not easy though, IMO, in current climate.

by Liz Eagles 20.04.16 11:09

aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

Provided he can find a law firm in UK that will take his case against the Mcs.

Not easy though, IMO, in current climate.

I don't think GA is in any rush.

Good to see you back aiyoyo.

by Bishop Brennan 20.04.16 11:19

Looks like the SUN is now carrying the story about Amaral's potential defamation suit against the McCanns.

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

big grin

by Bishop Brennan 20.04.16 11:31

aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

Provided he can find a law firm in UK that will take his case against the Mcs.

Not easy though, IMO, in current climate.

If Amaral does counter-sue it's almost certainly going to be in Portugal not the UK. However, he is likely to wait at least 30 days to find out if the McCanns follow through on their threat to take this to the Supreme Court.

And where next, European Courts? It's important to remember that Gerry is a narcissist and will NEVER give this up. NEVER. He is simply unable to admit any wrong - and IMO will prefer to bankrupt his family than to concede. Fingers crossed that the Supreme Court give him short shrift (which in the current case is about a year)...!

Be interesting to find out if he has to pay the costs before the SC appeal or not. The book (and film) goes on sale right away, but not sure about the costs.

by MayMuse 20.04.16 11:33

Interesting choice of photos by the Sun; the parents were 'heartbroken' last night as they planned to put the £430,000 in the 'fund' to find Madeleine?

So now the fact that Amaral has won, it further harms the 'search' as they have less money? Is this another angle they are going to take!

Haven't OG been funding this since 2011?

Sorry, but are they for real, really? dontgetit

by Liz Eagles 20.04.16 11:49

Bishop Brennan wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted:

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

Provided he can find a law firm in UK that will take his case against the Mcs.

Not easy though, IMO, in current climate.

If Amaral does counter-sue it's almost certainly going to be in Portugal not the UK. However, he is likely to wait at least 30 days to find out if the McCanns follow through on their threat to take this to the Supreme Court.

And where next, European Courts? It's important to remember that Gerry is a narcissist and will NEVER give this up. NEVER. He is simply unable to admit any wrong - and IMO will prefer to bankrupt his family than to concede. Fingers crossed that the Supreme Court give him short shrift (which in the current case is about a year)...!

Be interesting to find out if he has to pay the costs before the SC appeal or not. The book (and film) goes on sale right away, but not sure about the costs.

Just to check my understanding of things.

GA had a ruling against him and around 500,000 euros was lodged with the court which safeguarded (seized assets) the award to the McCanns pending an appeal.

The case subsequently went to appeal at a higher court which found in favour of GA and has ordered the McCanns to pay costs - the sum of these costs has not been published.

It's my understanding that the original 50k euros will remain with the court because the next step in the process is an appeal to the Supreme Court so no monies will be released to GA at this point.

Given the latest ruling, does this mean that the McCanns will also have to lodge money with the court the same as GA did? because if it does, it means that GA and the McCanns (if the process is equal and that's not clear right now) will both have money lodged with the court until further notice of any appeal made to the Supreme Court.

The McCanns seem to have ring-fenced the sum of £750k - this sum of money has been reported in UK Press as some form of reserve for the search if Operation Grange pull the plug. I've resisted the temptation to say what I think of this misinformation.

With all the hype today, nothing has been said about the process. Not one mention of the amount of the actual costs demanded by the court from the McCanns.

by jeanmonroe 20.04.16 12:04

The McCanns AND their THREE children still 'OWE' court costs from their FAILED bid to overturn 'book ban' at appellate court!

That 'writ' was bought by the McS and their three children, and having LOST, all costs were awarded against the 'writ' bringers.

Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, and their feckless 'parents' are LIABLE for the appellate court costs.

Somehow they managed to 'defer' the book 'ban' court costs until the 'outcome' of their libel case.

Which they have, to date, now 'lost'.

So Mcs AND children are NOW 'liable' for two 'lots' of 'costs'.

by Liz Eagles 20.04.16 12:07

Good to see you back jeanmonroe.

by aiyoyo 20.04.16 12:58

aquila wrote:
I don't think GA is in any rush.

Good to see you back aiyoyo.

Thanks.
Yes, he did say, wisely, that there is a right time for everything.

He won't (and can't) do the counter sue until the Supreme Court Appeal is over anyway, that's more or less a given IMO.

Two decisions, two revokes, by two separate Court of Appeals, and by a panel of two sets of three judges, quite some forces to be reckon with.
I think the Mcs appeal will stand no chance at all.
It will be thrown out on basis of no possible prospect of success (just like OP case).
"Appreciation of the law" - remember the nugget from ID? Am surprised she is so naive to expect people to believe that the appreciation of law isn't considered alongside facts put before court.
Only a sore loser could come up with such a lame excuse. We all know judges are obliged by law to deliberate on the evidence/facts when appreciating or applying the law.....thats the whole point of their job.

The Mcs have no choice but to try nonetheless as the defeat will cost them very dearly, not just in money. It sets a benchmark standard for future.

by aiyoyo 20.04.16 14:07

Bishop Brennan wrote:

If Amaral does counter-sue it's almost certainly going to be in Portugal not the UK. However, he is likely to wait at least 30 days to find out if the McCanns follow through on their threat to take this to the Supreme Court.

And where next, European Courts? It's important to remember that Gerry is a narcissist and will NEVER give this up. NEVER. He is simply unable to admit any wrong - and IMO will prefer to bankrupt his family than to concede. Fingers crossed that the Supreme Court give him short shrift (which in the current case is about a year)...!

Be interesting to find out if he has to pay the costs before the SC appeal or not. The book (and film) goes on sale right away, but not sure about the costs.

How is it going to work or be effective to counter sue them in Portugal? I will be very surprised if the counter sue is intended for Portugal court.
It won't work! How to oblige them to attend court?
It will have to be filed in UK jurisdiction if he hopes to counter sue them with success.
Think about it! Otherwise why didn't the Mcs file their case in UK, why in Portugal?

I think it's only the defendants that can take it all the way EHRC if needed be, and not the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs free speech isn't impeded in any way shape or form.

Don't forget the Mcs were rejected by several law firms in portugal before ID accepted their case (for self gratification reason to build her reputation on international case imo).

ID had used very underhanded tactics to file the case - by going to a chamber with a very young inexperienced judge (still wet behind the ear) behind closed doors, behind the back of the defendants, and it was this young judge that deemed there is a prima facie case to proceed thereby granting them the temp injunction meantime. ID use of unorthodox method/tactic isn't honest and in so doing she was selling her clients false hope they'd a case.
The subsequent overturn by Appeal Court of the young judge temp injunction (critical of said young judge if I am not wrong) even before the case gets to open hearing in court speaks volume about the young judge decision - ie inappropriate.

If not for ID devious ambition to boost her career, banking on kate's evil intention to destroy the man she held a personal grudge against, the Mcs would not be left to wipe her backside. It's true they both are as bad as each other, but if ID hadn't used dishonest method and hadn't promised them the honey pot on such a vexatious case there would be nought that they can do on their own. My take on it anyway.

As for the costs, the winning party needs pay nothing.
It is the losing side (the Mcs and children) that has to bear all the legal costs - their own legal costs (their own obligation) as well as that of the winning party obliged on them by the Court.
A suspension time to settle may be set aside...suspended until the final Appeal is over, that is if they're going ahead to the supreme court. If they decide not to appeal, it would mean they accept this verdict and will have to settle the legal costs within stipulated time.

No doubt ID will give the 16-pages-judgement a good going over with a fine tooth comb to try and find a tangible basis to go to appeal and what chances of success on that basis. Clients decision to appeal or not often relies on lawyer advice to them - on what basis, realistic chances or not of success etc. Of course lawyer can never guarantee success, even on 50/50, clients may still go for it, unless prospect is very poor then lawyer may counsel clients not to attempt it.

At this going rate, I tend to the belief they will take it to the Supreme Court even against all odds since they have nothing further to lose apart from incurring more legal costs.

by **Jill Havern** 20.04.16 15:35

Natasha has now posted the article in full, with an extra bit at the bottom about the counter-suing ! !

[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.

by HelenMeg 20.04.16 15:43

It's bizarre.. there is an ongoing police investigation (actually, 2 !) regarding the disappearance of Madeleine Mc Cann - at the same time as all of this suing and countersuing.
It is time for someone to have the courage (political of course) to put a stop to all of this - to resolve the case and allow the truth to emerge.
What a farce

by whatsupdoc 20.04.16 16:14

HelenMeg wrote:It's bizarre.. there is an ongoing police investigation (actually, 2 !) regarding the disappearance of Madeleine Mc Cann - at the same time as all of this suing and countersuing.
It is time for someone to have the courage (political of course) to put a stop to all of this - to resolve the case and allow the truth to emerge.
What a farce

IMO I blame Gordon Brown for interfering initially and probably getting GA removed from the case and David Cameron for giving a blinkered brief to the police.

What could they do if they were told to only concentrate on a non-existent abductor?

IMO We have had a string of poor-performing PMs. Who pulls the strings?

by **Jill Havern** 20.04.16 17:45

Amaral to sue is now all over the place:

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

by whatsupdoc 20.04.16 18:30

All good news for GA there, Jill.

I've had a couple of looks at the BBC webpages today and nothing re GA. It's not a real news website as it has magazine articles and sport.

I would like to see the tapas members who got a payout from the Papers have to pay it back.They said they gave the money to the Fund but I think it is irrelevant what they did with it.

by Bishop Brennan 21.04.16 4:48

aiyoyo wrote:
How is it going to work or be effective to counter sue them in Portugal? I will be very surprised if the counter sue is intended for Portugal court.
It won't work! How to oblige them to attend court?
It will have to be filed in UK jurisdiction if he hopes to counter sue them with success.
Think about it! Otherwise why didn't the Mcs file their case in UK, why in Portugal?

...
I think it's only the defendants that can take it all the way EHRC if needed be, and not the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs free speech isn't impeded in any way shape or form.

...
At this going rate, I tend to the belief they will take it to the Supreme Court even against all odds since they have nothing further to lose apart from incurring more legal costs.

Some interesting points there. And with no international lawyers here we won't know for sure until the 3 things actually happen or not. To pass the time, I would muse as follows:

1. For the counter-suit, it seems to me that the "damage" was done in Portugal and so that is where the suit will be filed. Imagine for example someone went to the USA and started publicly libelling / slandering the President - it would be a US court that would then press charges, bringing their laws of libel (or whatever) into play - even if the person scarpered back to the UK.

When the American author Pat Brown put her McCann book on Amazon-UK, it was Carter Ruck-UK who were involved in threatening law-suits (to her and to Amazon). Same theory - she "came" to the UK (via her book) to allegedly libel the McCanns and so it was UK lawyers who got involved.

In this case, the McCanns allegedly 'went' to Portugal the express wish of "damaging" Amaral and his ability to earn money, and 'damaging' his reputation. And so perhaps Portuguese lawyers and laws will be invoked.

2. I was just thinking that the McCanns could try to claim that European Law gives the "right to a good name" - and effectively lodge a new case similar to the one lodged in Portugal. Not sure if they can, but you can be sure they will try

3. Agree with you. They went to the Supreme Court last time, and as you say, the only reason not to is cost - something which has never stopped them in the past. Plus it slows down them having to pay the (potentially substantial) court costs. Took almost a year I think for the SC to kick out the last one, so we could be hunkering down again for a while. 30 day clock is on.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 21.04.16 6:01

I remember when they had another clock running - to keep the investigation open into their missing daughter. They, or their extended family, had a deadline to ask the court to keep it open.

Every one of them deliberately missed that deadline.

It speaks volumes that they don't miss a deadline where money is concerned.

by aiyoyo 22.04.16 0:08

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Some interesting points there. And with no international lawyers here we won't know for sure until the 3 things actually happen or not. To pass the time, I would muse as follows:

1. For the counter-suit, it seems to me that the "damage" was done in Portugal and so that is where the suit will be filed. Imagine for example someone went to the USA and started publicly libelling / slandering the President - it would be a US court that would then press charges, bringing their laws of libel (or whatever) into play - even if the person scarpered back to the UK.

Not good analogy imo. A libel taking place in US naturally has to be tried in US.
The Mcs case against a few defendants by default had to done in Pt because book, documentary and defendants all have bases there. If done in UK how to oblige defendants to attend trial?

Amaral's counter suit against them if tail coats onto mcs instigated case ie turn it around to seek compensation (on the back of their action), a consequential action that requires filing of documentation for judge to ascertain damage and to award compensation without the need of trial or need for defendants (originally plaintiffs) to attend court then filing in Pt may be practical/feasible (if allowable by law).

I've no idea if turning the plaintiffs case around to in turn seek compensation from them as a consequence of damages caused to the defendants resulting from their case is a viable or permissible thing in Pt, so only second guessing here.

If counter suing them for broader defamation outside the perimeters of what this case caused to him, I can't see how Pt court can oblige Mcs (and other defendants if it comes to that) to attend trial in portugal. A trial in absentia will struggle (if at all possible) to enforce compensation if it comes to that.

A compensation claim without need for trial, without need for plaintiffs turn defendants to attend court, is perhaps enforceable, after all it is a consequential compensation claim, as a subsequence to plaintiffs case. That's just my thinking.

When the American author Pat Brown put her McCann book on Amazon-UK, it was Carter Ruck-UK who were involved in threatening law-suits (to her and to Amazon). Same theory - she "came" to the UK (via her book) to allegedly libel the McCanns and so it was UK lawyers who got involved.

No idea if Pat Brown's book was on amazon uk or us, but believe you are mistaken about the law suit. She was never issued law suit or writ far as I know. It was warning letter from CR asking amazon to desist from selling PB's literature.

In this case, the McCanns allegedly 'went' to Portugal the express wish of "damaging" Amaral and his ability to earn money, and 'damaging' his reputation. And so perhaps Portuguese lawyers and laws will be invoked.

Not allegedly but deliberately and factually. With expressed desire for him to feel fear ie destroy him (this is true, kate said so in her book).

2. I was just thinking that the McCanns could try to claim that European Law gives the "right to a good name" - and effectively lodge a new case similar to the one lodged in Portugal. Not sure if they can, but you can be sure they will try

If the supreme court should reject them they would have exhausted all avenues.
They are the plaintiffs, their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and opinion isn't at stake. I am not sure you can take rights to good name to EHRC, I shouldn't think so. The equal rights commission would be obliged to consider Amaral equal rights to good name as well, on par with the mccanns, if that is the case.

3. Agree with you. They went to the Supreme Court last time, and as you say, the only reason not to is cost - something which has never stopped them in the past. Plus it slows down them having to pay the (potentially substantial) court costs. Took almost a year I think for the SC to kick out the last one, so we could be hunkering down again for a while. 30 day clock is on.

The defeat is more of a concern to them than the court costs for obvious reason.
Playing for time to settle court costs can't be the objective of the appeal. It would be last ditch effort of their transgression war against Amaral & Co.

by Bishop Brennan 22.04.16 8:47

aiyoyo wrote:

BB: When the American author Pat Brown put her McCann book on Amazon-UK, it was Carter Ruck-UK who were involved in threatening law-suits (to her and to Amazon). Same theory - she "came" to the UK (via her book) to allegedly libel the McCanns and so it was UK lawyers who got involved.

No idea if Pat Brown's book was on amazon uk or us, but believe you are mistaken about the law suit. She was never issued law suit or writ far as I know. It was warning letter from CR asking amazon to desist from selling PB's literature.

BB: In this case, the McCanns allegedly 'went' to Portugal the express wish of "damaging" Amaral and his ability to earn money, and 'damaging' his reputation. And so perhaps Portuguese lawyers and laws will be invoked.

Not allegedly but deliberately and factually. With expressed desire for him to feel fear ie destroy him (this is true, kate said so in her book).

You are quite right about the Pat Brown book - it was Amazon that received the letter from Carter-Ruck telling them to remove it because it "contained libel" against the McCanns.

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

And good point about Kate's intent, clearly stated in her book. Words that may well come back to haunt her. "Exhibit A" as it has been called in the past!

big grin

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 9:18

From PeterMac:

right back to Oct 2007
BRITISH police and Prof doubted their version.Were they sued ?

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

McCanns evidence 'doesn't add up'

00:00, 18 OCT 2007
UPDATED 14:05, 3 FEB 2012
BY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A team of British crime specialists who have scrutinised the Madeleine McCann case claim there are inconsistencies in her parents' version of events.

A team of British crime specialists who have scrutinised the Madeleine McCann case claim there are inconsistencies in her parents' version of events.

The retired experts believe there is a question mark over Kate's response when she discovered the four-year-old was missing.

Forensic scientist Professor David Barclay, part of the four-man team who reviewed the case for Channel Four's Dispatches show, said: "We examined all of the available evidence and the conclusion we came to was that there appeared to be some significant inconsistencies.

"One thing we looked for was any sign of 'staging', the term we use for the actions of someone who has committed a crime and wants to 'stage it' to appear someone else has done it.

"The first words apparently spoken by Kate McCann when she discovered Madeleine had vanished were significant. She is supposed to have said 'They've taken her, they've taken her' - which seems a strange choice of phrase.

"I don't think that would have been my first reaction if my child had gone missing."

Prof Barclay also questioned the McCanns' claims that an abductor got into their Praia da Luz holiday flat through the back shutters.

He said: "We checked the scene of the crime and it struck us immediately how unlikely it would be for anyone to try and access the apartment through the back windows. The shutters there were firmly shut and couldn't be opened and the car park behind the flat was overlooked.

"We're not saying it was impossible to have gained entry that way, but with all of our collected years of experience to us it seemed highly unlikely and a very implausible scenario.

"It could be that claim is consistent with staging, but without full knowledge of all of the facts in the case it would be impossible to say for sure."

Prof Barclay visited the crime scene along with ex-Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson, the man who caught Soham killer Ian Huntley and psychological profiler David Canter.

The will seen on tonight's show visiting key sites and seeing footage of the police in action.

Prof Barclay, 62, added: "There has been a tendency to criticise the Portuguese police but on the whole they did a pretty good job.

"However, they made two big mistakes. Firstly, they did not seal of the crime scene anywhere nearly quick enough. Secondly, in my opinion they were not aggressive enough with the McCanns in the first stage of the investigation.

"It is actually for the parents' benefit in cases like this that the police tackle them robustly and demand a comprehensive account of their movements during the relevant timeframe."

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 9:20

Nicked from twitter:

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

by pennylane 22.04.16 11:11

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]......and that is bang on the money!

by Guest 22.04.16 12:29

Aaah but who is it - The Good Quality Cuddlecat Manufacturing Co. Ltd? Or Renault for failing to withdraw all their Scenic models from the Portuguese market - following reports of a design fault that allegedly caused interior gas emissions?

Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

A team of British crime specialists who have scrutinised the Madeleine McCann case claim there are inconsistencies in her parents' version of events.

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Re: Joana Morais: Some news reports alleging Gonçalo Amaral is going to sue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses"

Latest topics