Blacksmith - Stating The McCann's Will Settle On Amaral's Terms ........PLUS NEW ***McCanns ask for extrajudicial settlement by Joana Morais**TRIAL NOW SUSPENDED**

aiyoyo wrote:YES, far as I know. This is the bizarre part - the asset freeze is part of the libel case process.
So long as the libel case is not settled, ruled on, done and dusted, the asset wont be released.
It forms part of the process and the process has to end before the asset is released.

If they drag it out for another 6 months it would cause GA a lot more financial pain and team McCann might see it worthwhile to do that.

aiyoyo wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:SNIP


What good would it do them to play delaying tactics? How long can they postpone it indefinitely for? Besides they will need to supply Court with good valid reason to delay, and their case against TB is not valid reason.

I dont believe they would seek settlement too, even against all odds, they are too arrogant and conniving for that.
UNLESS their lawyer had strongly advised them to stop heading further towards the train; they had NO CHOICE; and that a settlement would at least claw them back some face.

Even if assuming legal costs may not be their prime concern, but a negative Court ruling will ruin their chance at reputation managing.
Besides you are right they wont want embarrassment fact to emerge and circulate freely in UK for all to see.

So the long and short of it is that it is in their interest to settle, and not the other round way, as those ostrich-pros with their heads buried in sands would like to fool themselves.

I'm thinking- what if the increasingly elusive Gerry decided he wanted to pull out meaning Kate would have to go it alone? That's enough reason to seek a settlement, no? Duarte has nothing to lose IMO. She has lost the last three cases against Amaral but still went ahead with the libel trial. Why would she suddenly have a change of heart when win or lose, she gets paid?

Kate and Gerry may be pissed with each other, and elusive Gerry may be abandoning his duty to Madeleine, but their discord is not going to be enough to change legal procedures and protocol that have to be strictly adhered to.

You cant simply willy nilly at your whim of fancy withdraw name of any plainitiffs ( at it stands, it is Mccanns and three children) midway without lots of paper works having to be refiled. Dont forget to allow due process of court filings and you have to allow lapse time for Court to slot in dates for trial. I doubt the Court would allow that at this stage as it has gone too far, especially after 3 courts had dealt with this.

Besides if they don't stand united (even if they are acrimonious in private) they will fall.
Personally I don't think they will announce their spilt, not for a few years yet when all these suits (and Review) are done and dusted then they will go separate way to lick their wounds.

ID has plenty to lose - dent to her reputation for one (a soul destroying thing for a showy lawyer); Mccanns refusing to pay her fees for bad advice, and Mccanns can sue her because of bad advice or negligence in her advice.

I don't think it is correct to say she went ahead with the libel regardless of past defeats. The libel was filed first, that allows for the application for temporary ban of the book, and all the due processes came and went, and she's left with the libel.
It is at this stage she must weight the chances and advise her client appropriately and I believe it is her advice to Mccanns to withdraw and of course the Mccanns have to concur for that to happen. If the Mccanns reject her recommendation then she will laugh all the way to the bank regardless.

At this stage? Don't forget the trial has been postponed at least twice before. They could have withdrawn the case before the previous two start dates. Why now?

IMO, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on to sue ID for bad advice. They didn't sue Pinto de Abreu who Kate informs us appeared to believe she had a case to answer and wanted her to confess and get maybe a two year sentence.

Bob Southgate wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:YES, far as I know. This is the bizarre part - the asset freeze is part of the libel case process.
So long as the libel case is not settled, ruled on, done and dusted, the asset wont be released.
It forms part of the process and the process has to end before the asset is released.

If they drag it out for another 6 months it would cause GA a lot more financial pain and team McCann might see it worthwhile to do that.

i dont see how if he has no bloody finances

ShuBob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:SNIP


What good would it do them to play delaying tactics? How long can they postpone it indefinitely for? Besides they will need to supply Court with good valid reason to delay, and their case against TB is not valid reason.

I dont believe they would seek settlement too, even against all odds, they are too arrogant and conniving for that.
UNLESS their lawyer had strongly advised them to stop heading further towards the train; they had NO CHOICE; and that a settlement would at least claw them back some face.

Even if assuming legal costs may not be their prime concern, but a negative Court ruling will ruin their chance at reputation managing.
Besides you are right they wont want embarrassment fact to emerge and circulate freely in UK for all to see.

So the long and short of it is that it is in their interest to settle, and not the other round way, as those ostrich-pros with their heads buried in sands would like to fool themselves.

I'm thinking- what if the increasingly elusive Gerry decided he wanted to pull out meaning Kate would have to go it alone? That's enough reason to seek a settlement, no? Duarte has nothing to lose IMO. She has lost the last three cases against Amaral but still went ahead with the libel trial. Why would she suddenly have a change of heart when win or lose, she gets paid?

Kate and Gerry may be pissed with each other, and elusive Gerry may be abandoning his duty to Madeleine, but their discord is not going to be enough to change legal procedures and protocol that have to be strictly adhered to.

You cant simply willy nilly at your whim of fancy withdraw name of any plainitiffs ( at it stands, it is Mccanns and three children) midway without lots of paper works having to be refiled. Dont forget to allow due process of court filings and you have to allow lapse time for Court to slot in dates for trial. I doubt the Court would allow that at this stage as it has gone too far, especially after 3 courts had dealt with this.

Besides if they don't stand united (even if they are acrimonious in private) they will fall.
Personally I don't think they will announce their spilt, not for a few years yet when all these suits (and Review) are done and dusted then they will go separate way to lick their wounds.

ID has plenty to lose - dent to her reputation for one (a soul destroying thing for a showy lawyer); Mccanns refusing to pay her fees for bad advice, and Mccanns can sue her because of bad advice or negligence in her advice.

I don't think it is correct to say she went ahead with the libel regardless of past defeats. The libel was filed first, that allows for the application for temporary ban of the book, and all the due processes came and went, and she's left with the libel.
It is at this stage she must weight the chances and advise her client appropriately and I believe it is her advice to Mccanns to withdraw and of course the Mccanns have to concur for that to happen. If the Mccanns reject her recommendation then she will laugh all the way to the bank regardless.

At this stage? Don't forget the trial has been postponed at least twice before. They could have withdrawn the case before the previous two start dates. Why now?

IMO, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on to sue ID for bad advice. They didn't sue Pinto de Abreu who Kate informs us appeared to believe she had a case to answer and wanted her to confess and get maybe a two year sentence.

Yes especially at this stage.
Maybe she didn't believe at earlier stage that they were going to lose.
Or maybe her stubborn clients refused to withdraw despite advice to do so at earlier stage.

The postponements were done with valid reasons, illness, secret witnesses, and what not. Each party had to submit their documents to Court beforehand to be given
to the other party for any countering points. Then countered points
had to be filed with Court ahead of the trial. Maybe ID was grateful for postponement time to go through opposition's documents with nit comb only to realise no strategy is workable againsy the other party's damnable and infallible evidence, despite her ingenuity to circumvent in an unorthodox manner.

So maybe with the passage of time, unworkable explored strategies, witnesses chickening out (didnt mad-Marcos run to Bolivia?) and not before she also bent her fellow lawyers' ears that it sinks into her they have no case.
Or maybe many things happening behind the scenes that we know nothing of caused her to come to this decision. Or maybe her obnoxious clients decided to chicken out instead of going to trial to beget a negative verdict hanging round their neck for life.

What is sure is: they went in cocksure they were going to destroy Amaral. Defeat is bitter pill to sallow - they simply refused to accept the inevitable until the last moment. You would have to have nerves of steel to withstand the string out but we are talking about the Mccanns, tough as nail.

If she knows they're heading towards disaster and fails to warn or advise appropriately it can be considered negligence, and be held accountable to it. Unlike Pinto de Abreu whose advice to Mccanns was given when they were held as arguidos, not home and dry, and probably a valid advice at that time. Whereas if ID were to knowingly give them false hope just to line her pocket that would be deceit.

I think the later is quite likely.
That having gone through the files again and again there is a gradual dawning realisation that what she was told cannot be right, and will not stand up in court.
A sudden blinding flash of the obvious that 1 minute and 25 seconds is not enough to enter an apartment by unknown means, sedate three children, pick up one, turn it round and exit, again by unknown manner.
And then to march purposefully right past the father of the girl you have in your arms.
Perhaps even someone speaking for the McCs can see that this would be laughed out of court.
Perhaps that is why CM started to lose faith and say it was only a "theory" or a "working hypothesis"

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

first, the words of the judge would have been in portuguese and you have no idea how accurate the translation is.

Secondly, yes the banning of the book was overturned. IMO this is because the court has to have a valid reason to ban a book and at that time it had not been decided if the book was libellous. The court did not release the frozen assets of GA which shows nothing had been decided. If the McCanns wished to halt their libel case they simply withdraw their action, which they haven't. For me everything points to GA backing down. We don't know for certain but hopefully we will soon. If the McCanns have backed down this is very good news for Tony, but he has been very quiet since the news broke.

ShuBob wrote:Anyone know what's happening with the McCanns' case against the TV station and the publishing company which they brought at the same time as the case against Amaral? There's been almost total silence on that front for some time

Heard they dropped it or the publishing co. went out of business, so pointless, something like that.
Cant find the link now. But that's not happening anymore.

BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

first, the words of the judge would have been in portuguese and you have no idea how accurate the translation is.

Secondly, yes the banning of the book was overturned. IMO this is because the court has to have a valid reason to ban a book and at that time it had not been decided if the book was libellous. The court did not release the frozen assets of GA which shows nothing had been decided. If the McCanns wished to halt their libel case they simply withdraw their action, which they haven't. For me everything points to GA backing down. We don't know for certain but hopefully we will soon. If the McCanns have backed down this is very good news for Tony, but he has been very quiet since the news broke.

You have been quiet though haven't you...up until now. So do indulge us with your reason for joining the forum within the last couple of days. Most people on this forum introduce themselves. Forgive me for being direct, it's just good to get these things out of the way.

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

first, the words of the judge would have been in portuguese and you have no idea how accurate the translation is.

Secondly, yes the banning of the book was overturned. IMO this is because the court has to have a valid reason to ban a book and at that time it had not been decided if the book was libellous. The court did not release the frozen assets of GA which shows nothing had been decided. If the McCanns wished to halt their libel case they simply withdraw their action, which they haven't. For me everything points to GA backing down. We don't know for certain but hopefully we will soon. If the McCanns have backed down this is very good news for Tony, but he has been very quiet since the news broke.

Cant make my mind whether you are just plain cynic or WUM. But something does not sit right with me about your posts, same vein as tcat. Deliberately obfuscating?

Tin hat on.

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

first, the words of the judge would have been in portuguese and you have no idea how accurate the translation is.

Secondly, yes the banning of the book was overturned. IMO this is because the court has to have a valid reason to ban a book and at that time it had not been decided if the book was libellous. The court did not release the frozen assets of GA which shows nothing had been decided. If the McCanns wished to halt their libel case they simply withdraw their action, which they haven't. For me everything points to GA backing down. We don't know for certain but hopefully we will soon. If the McCanns have backed down this is very good news for Tony, but he has been very quiet since the news broke.

So are you saying that the translation here:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

is translated so incorrectly they have actually translated what was a McCann victory into an Amaral one. Really? Is that your argument? Because that's thinner than thin and ludicrous to the extreme.

Please then provide what you believe to be a more accurate translation.

Your assessment of the situation regarding the unbanning of the book is incorrect. The judges gave a clear verdict that it wasn't libellous.

Here are parts of that verdict:

All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

And also this one:

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.

The final decision of the judges did adjudicate as to whether it was libellous:

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

The McCann's could not prove it was libellous which was the nature of that and this case, and the reasons I gave above (along with many others) was why it wasn't proved to be so.

It wasn’t a holding verdict until a full libel trial was launched. It was a clear and definitive victory for Amaral, overturning their libel claims and giving judicial reason as to why his book wasn’t libellous.

If his book was proven in an appeals court not to be libellous, how could the McCann’s then try and prove to a lower court that they libelled him?

All aspects of the original case were revoked which i take to include the freezing of assets.

In relation to the McCann's withdrawing their action then if they did so Amaral would then counter sue for costs and damages. They are trying to negotiate a way out of the action to prevent Amaral from doing so.

You cling on to whatever falsehoods you like BUT it is clear to anyone with half an understanding what is going on here.
[color:c680=000000]

Ribisl wrote:
Are his assets still frozen?

YES, far as I know. This is the bizarre part - the asset freeze is part of the libel case process.
So long as the libel case is not settled, ruled on, done and dusted, the asset wont be released.
It forms part of the process and the process has to end before the asset is released.

I didn't realise that. That then adds further ammunition to the "negotiations" being instigated by the McCann's. Because i am sure there would be a price to pay for initiating libel and freezing someone's assets and then simply pulling out at the 11th hour.

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:of course if Aamral agrees to withdraw his book and his accusations then...the McCanns will settle on Amarals terms and Blacksmith will be right. From what I can see a libel trial is of no benefit to the McCanns as Amaral has no money and would not be able to pay damages, including the McCanns legal fees.

Similarly with Tony. Once Tony has paid the costs of Smethurst he will have no money to pay any amounts awarded by the court should he lose the libel case.

ed1976 wrote:This really is an incredible situation. Has Amaral decided he cannot
defend what he has said in the book? If he could surely he would relish
his day in court seeing the McCanns squirm. if he had done this would
have been fantastic for Tony. We don't know yet. Interesting times
ahead.

Why would Amaral choose to settle when he WON the last legal case regarding the banning of his book and this case revolves around the same arguments? Amaral has a judicial precedent that what he said in his book was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

Armed with that verdict in his pocket do you really believe he would be seeking to settle now?

Why would he need to do that?

On the other hand and conversely, The McCann's LOST the trial regarding the book and were faced with the damning verdict of the judges (part of which you can read in my email signature) and were told that Amaral's thesis was a valid police led one.

Equally Amaral had no money at the book banning trial but they ploughed on with that.

So i'd ask you, to use an Americanism, to "do the math".

first, the words of the judge would have been in portuguese and you have no idea how accurate the translation is.

Secondly, yes the banning of the book was overturned. IMO this is because the court has to have a valid reason to ban a book and at that time it had not been decided if the book was libellous. The court did not release the frozen assets of GA which shows nothing had been decided. If the McCanns wished to halt their libel case they simply withdraw their action, which they haven't. For me everything points to GA backing down. We don't know for certain but hopefully we will soon. If the McCanns have backed down this is very good news for Tony, but he has been very quiet since the news broke.

So are you saying that the translation here:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

is translated so incorrectly they have actually translated what was a McCann victory into an Amaral one. Really? Is that your argument? Because that's thinner than thin and ludicrous to the extreme.

Please then provide what you believe to be a more accurate translation.

Your assessment of the situation regarding the unbanning of the book is incorrect. The judges gave a clear verdict that it wasn't libellous.

Here are parts of that verdict:

All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

And also this one:

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.

The final decision of the judges did adjudicate as to whether it was libellous:

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants*.

The McCann's could not prove it was libellous which was the nature of that and this case, and the reasons I gave above (along with many others) was why it wasn't proved to be so.

It wasn’t a holding verdict until a full libel trial was launched. It was a clear and definitive victory for Amaral, overturning their libel claims and giving judicial reason as to why his book wasn’t libellous.

If his book was proven in an appeals court not to be libellous, how could the McCann’s then try and prove to a lower court that they libelled him?

All aspects of the original case were revoked which i take to include the freezing of assets.

In relation to the McCann's withdrawing their action then if they did so Amaral would then counter sue for costs and damages. They are trying to negotiate a way out of the action to prevent Amaral from doing so.

You cling on to whatever falsehoods you like BUT it is clear to anyone with half an understanding what is going on here.
[color:9b66=000000]

If you read my post again you will see that I said you had no idea how accurate the translation is. For instance, changing the words "cadaverine contaminant" to "the place where a dead body lay" changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

you are mistaken on the freezing of the assets.

I don't cling to any falsehoods, as you have from the sentence above. I don't know the truth as I have repeatedly said, I have an opinion. Either of us may be wrong.

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

So its a FAILED libel action now, you know for sure.

it would follow then that the action against Tony must fail, strange he is so quiet.

Me wrote:

Ribisl wrote:
Are his assets still frozen?

YES, far as I know. This is the bizarre part - the asset freeze is part of the libel case process.
So long as the libel case is not settled, ruled on, done and dusted, the asset wont be released.
It forms part of the process and the process has to end before the asset is released.

I didn't realise that. That then adds further ammunition to the "negotiations" being instigated by the McCann's. Because i am sure there would be a price to pay for initiating libel and freezing someone's assets and then simply pulling out at the 11th hour.

Not only they initiated the libel. they froze his assets to ensure it will be there for them to lay their hands on if it comes to that.
It is something so unprecedented that people consider Mccanns and ID evil for pre empting the outcome when the case hasn't gone to trial.
It is unethical and immoral to hit below the belt to asphyxiate Amaral in the hope he caves in but he didn't.

Trust ID to do everything underhandedly. Filed the libel and injunction by sneaky method, an ex-parte express style. There was criticism of the first instance judge, a young inexperience lady, who did not take the time to apprise herself of the facts of the case, before accepting it on prima facie value. I bet there's a reason for ID to have chosen her to file with, after her first filing with another Judge failed.

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

So its a FAILED libel action now, you know for sure.

it would follow then that the action against Tony must fail, strange he is so quiet.

Doh!!! What part of TWO failed court actions with the McCanns paying costs do you not understand?? The book was not considered libellous, so it would be VERY difficult for the McCanns to pursue Amaral in Court.
You still haven't answered various questions as to why you joined the forum. Why won't you answer? I can almost sense various Mod fingers hovering over the "Ejecta-Troll" button.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

So its a FAILED libel action now, you know for sure.

it would follow then that the action against Tony must fail, strange he is so quiet.

Doh!!! What part of TWO failed court actions with the McCanns paying costs do you not understand?? The book was not considered libellous, so it would be VERY difficult for the McCanns to pursue Amaral in Court.
You still haven't answered various questions as to why you joined the forum. Why won't you answer? I can almost sense various Mod fingers hovering over the "Ejecta-Troll" button.

I joined the forum to expresss my point of view. Nothing wrong with that I would have thought. For now I will refrain from posting until there is further news as I feel rather a lot of hostility towards me. Free speech is important remember.

ed1976 wrote:If you read my post again you will see that I said you had no idea how accurate the translation is. For instance, changing the words "cadaverine contaminant" to "the place where a dead body lay" changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

you are mistaken on the freezing of the assets.

I don't cling to any falsehoods, as you have from the sentence above. I don't know the truth as I have repeatedly said, I have an opinion. Either of us may be wrong.

What you are suggesting is that the whole judgement has been translated incorrectly. It hasn't.

it's easy to cry foul about the translations when you can't put forward an alternative. I repeat if it is incorrect please provide another trannlsation whcih you believe to be correct which differs materially from the one provided.

I'm saying you can't produce one. Prove me wrong.

In relation to the assets it my be that they are still frozen but that seems from what i have now read to be more about the process of a libel action rather than any definitive judgement of guilt. The Portuguese appear to freeze assets when a libel trial is launched specifically to prevent the transfer of assets to third parties.

The freezing of assets is a procedural matter and is not any indication of guilt because no guilt has been found and indeed on the book banning case (which was a seperate case, but one which went to the heart of libel) it was not proven that there was any libel to warrant the banning of the book.

That judgement, however you want to try and wiggle away from it, was in Amaral's back pocket to be pulled out at this trial and fully vindicated him and his book as not being libellous and indeed being a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

This judgement of no libel was made in the Lisbon court of appeal on 19th Ocotber 2010 and upheld in the Supreme Court of Appeal on the 18th March 2011 after the McCann's appealed.

We use the facts before us to come to an informed opinion about what is happening now.

You on the other hand are ignoring the facts and judgments of the previous trials, ignoring the perfectly valid translations of them, twisting the procedures of the libel case to somehow indicate guilt against Amaral when none has been found all to form an "opinion" that this is Amaral crumbling when there is not a shred of evidence or previous fact which would even begin to indicate that this what has happened.

Why would Amaral back down now given his previous court success and with his assets frozen? What more could he lose? And why, given his asset situation, would the McCann's accept him backing down and not go to court given Kate's stated aim of destroying him?

So come up with an opinion as much as you like, but if it's an Alice in Wonderland one, with no bearing in the reality of the facts and surrounding situation then don't be surprised if myself and others on here will expose your opinion for what it is.

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

So its a FAILED libel action now, you know for sure.

it would follow then that the action against Tony must fail, strange he is so quiet.

As the action has been postponed pending settlement, then clearly it has failed. If it went to court (which it now won't) and they had won it would have been successful.

Do you not understand the difference?

Or let me ask you if it hasn't failed please explain why you think it hasn't.

The action against Tony Bennett is completely different and revolves around a different judicial system and also regarding undertakings which he made which were never put upon Amaral.

You're trying to compare chalk and cheese.

However my two cents is that the McCann's capitulation in Portugal must give Tony Bennett some strength in his own case, and i would not be surprised, if that too went the way of Amaral's trial in seeking negotiated settlment.

My own belief is that in TB's case the McCann's will see if they can obtain judgement against him without going to a full libel trial. If they fail on that count and the Judge orders a full libel trial then i feel reasonably certain that that too will be canned.

But that's just my own thoughts.

It seems in both cases though that the McCann's don't appear to want full libel trials to be heard in an open courtroom.

I wonder why that is? Do you?

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:BS's latest.

SATURDAY, 19 JANUARY 2013

Libel diary January 18
So there we are: readers will no doubt have seen the Portuguese announcement that the trial is suspended (for a maximum of six months) for the negotiations to take place.

The Bureau sits here placidly waiting for the first comments from Kate & Gerry McCann or people speaking on their behalf. Listen to them carefully and you'll be able to judge for yourselves who is asking whom for a settlement. Of course if they don't say anything over the next week or so – we'll just have to nag them again.

Come on Clarence – you're up to the task, aren't you?

Can wee also expect a comment from GA

Why should he? Amaral did not launch what has turned out to be a FAILED libel action.

So its a FAILED libel action now, you know for sure.

it would follow then that the action against Tony must fail, strange he is so quiet.

Doh!!! What part of TWO failed court actions with the McCanns paying costs do you not understand?? The book was not considered libellous, so it would be VERY difficult for the McCanns to pursue Amaral in Court.
You still haven't answered various questions as to why you joined the forum. Why won't you answer? I can almost sense various Mod fingers hovering over the "Ejecta-Troll" button.

I joined the forum to expresss my point of view. Nothing wrong with that I would have thought. For now I will refrain from posting until there is further news as I feel rather a lot of hostility towards me. Free speech is important remember.

No hostility towards you whatsoever. I welcome that you are here and posting. This is a place which welcomes discussions and opinions.

However the caveat to that is that any opinions must be validated with fact, logic and reasoning.

If not then those opinions will be challenged and dissected.

You are aware (and i have to keep reminding new posters on here sometimes) of the old saying as to what opinions are like? You know the one about everyone having them?

So please keep posting your opinions but make sure you can support them before you post them.

Me wrote:

In relation to the McCann's withdrawing their action then if they did so Amaral would then counter sue for costs and damages. They are trying to negotiate a way out of the action to prevent Amaral from doing so.

It could well be that - that they did not withdraw to avoid inevitable counter sue.
After they put Amaral and family to hell they must expect to pay and pay dearly.

From what I understand they couldnt withdraw without serious repercussions. It will be regarded as bad faith, vexatious filing, and therefore by nature of that a default win for Amaral's counter sue. Hence their only viable option seems to be to settle on Amaral terms.

I dont trust them and hope team Amaral make them pay properly.Already they are spinning about Kate bewk's profit and the Fund.
They would be shouting from top of the roof if it wasnt them seeking this settlement - anyone can see them missing the opportunity?

First and foremost they should be made to notify UK media it was them who sought settlement and issue a public apology. I think BS is indicating that is what's expected from team Mccann.

Strangely pinky seems to have gone missing? Abducted?

The only settlement that could possibly be a victory for the mccanns, would be if GA voluntarily agreed to withdraw his book from sale and perhaps give an undertaking that he would never speak about the case again. Can anyone honestly see GA agreeing to this?