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

tiny wrote:are you on some kind of wind-up,

Inspectorfrost wrote:Ed, Why do you think the Mccanns asked for the libel trial to be suspended? And at the eleventh hour?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Isn't it more likely that those who are paying the Mc's legal fees (as no indication on the fund accounts or anywhere else that the Mc's are paying for them) know that the McCanns have no chance of success following the Supreme Court ruling that The Truth of the Lie is not libellous, and are not willing to pay costs for the third time? Even Isabelle Duarte knows there is no longer any shred of support for the Mc's in Portugal. And in following through with a court case Amaral has an opportunity to make public all that the Mc's have strived to keep secret for over 5 yrs, however ridiculous their attempts have been.

Inspectorfrost wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Isn't it more likely that those who are paying the Mc's legal fees (as no indication on the fund accounts or anywhere else that the Mc's are paying for them) know that the McCanns have no chance of success following the Supreme Court ruling that The Truth of the Lie is not libellous, and are not willing to pay costs for the third time? Even Isabelle Duarte knows there is no longer any shred of support for the Mc's in Portugal. And in following through with a court case Amaral has an opportunity to make public all that the Mc's have strived to keep secret for over 5 yrs, however ridiculous their attempts have been.

Smokey, they have indicated in their accounts for 2009 and 2010 that the fund was paying for Ms Duarte. Subsequent two years make no mention.

ed1976 wrote:Me states

Yet we have 2 sources categorically stating that the McCann's have caved in. So someone close to Amaral or the process has spoken about this haven't they? Ye not one source has said the opposite to support your version of events.

As I have stated before , this is untrue. you do not seem to be in touch with reality. The post by BS is on the first page of this forum and nowhere does he state, categorically or otherwise that the McCanns have or will cave in. Niether did Morais. Try and stick to facts otherwise you rubbish your own argumants

That pursuit has failed. The McCanns are going to settle on Amaral's terms and that means it's the beginning of the end of six years of lies and deception. No, I can't evoke even a touch of sympathy for them: they have acted wickedly and now they are going to pay.

Hi Teddy, no matter what the McCann propaganda machine (aka Clarence Mitchell/Lift Consulting in PT) spits, they lost it!

ed1976 wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Ed, Why do you think the Mccanns asked for the libel trial to be suspended? And at the eleventh hour?

Sorry but I have answerred this at length.

They reached a deal with TB at the eleventh hour as well

ed1976 wrote:

tiny wrote:That pursuit has failed. The McCanns are going to settle on Amaral's terms and that means it's the beginning of the end of six years of lies and deception. No, I can't evoke even a touch of sympathy for them: they have acted wickedly and now they are going to pay.

does not this seem like the mccanns have caved in,or have i read it wrong. note the mccanns are going to settle on Mr Amarals terms

you use the word "seem"

Thats a lot different to "catagorically states". I am sure you would agree.Plus... no mention of the McCanns caving in. if you do not have your basic facts right then all your conclusions willl be flawed.

The McCanns ARE going to settle on Amaral's terms

Inspectorfrost wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Ed, Why do you think the Mccanns asked for the libel trial to be suspended? And at the eleventh hour?

Sorry but I have answerred this at length.

They reached a deal with TB at the eleventh hour as well

I was under the impresion that the negotiations are to lessen the amount they have to pay to GA.

Hi Teddy, no matter what the McCann propaganda machine (aka Clarence Mitchell/Lift Consulting in PT) spits, they lost it!

Me wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Ed, Why do you think the Mccanns asked for the libel trial to be suspended? And at the eleventh hour?

Sorry but I have answerred this at length.

They reached a deal with TB at the eleventh hour as well

I was under the impresion that the negotiations are to lessen the amount they have to pay to GA.

Any sane person can see that it is indeed what the negotiations are for.

You cannot launch libel action which freezes the defendents assets for 3 years and forces him to incur significant legal costs then give up before trial without making reparations to that defendent.

ed1976

the McCanns have not give up IMO

Thats why they will be making demands against GA

They must have, how can they make demands against GA, they are already were demanding 1.2 milliion and a libel trial.

Anyway, I would think if anyone backs out of a trial, it is up to them to pay the costs that have been incurred by the other side.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Inspectorfrost wrote:Where did you get that strange idea that GA is going to have to pay the McCanns compensation? The McCanns can make proposals but GA has no obligation to accept them and if he says no to all of them the case goes to court or the McCanns can withdraw their suit. I don't understand how you can interpret the couple asking for the suspension of the trial and negotiation as meaning that they are in a position of force to make demands on Gonçalo Amaral because it is in fact a sign of weakness. A strange way of seeing things.


Ed, This is a post on the other forum by Carolina.

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Quite simply the last case did not decide whether the book was libellous, it couldn't, it was not a libel trial. you can't ban a book because you dont like it, there has to be a good reason. The book ban was overturned, rightly in my opinion.The question of libel was to be decided at a later date.

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Quite simply the last case did not decide whether the book was libellous, it couldn't, it was not a libel trial. you can't ban a book because you dont like it, there has to be a good reason. The book ban was overturned, rightly in my opinion.The question of libel was to be decided at a later date.

Cristobell wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Quite simply the last case did not decide whether the book was libellous, it couldn't, it was not a libel trial. you can't ban a book because you dont like it, there has to be a good reason. The book ban was overturned, rightly in my opinion.The question of libel was to be decided at a later date.

are you a lawyer ed?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Quite simply the last case did not decide whether the book was libellous, it couldn't, it was not a libel trial. you can't ban a book because you dont like it, there has to be a good reason. The book ban was overturned, rightly in my opinion.The question of libel was to be decided at a later date.

The Mc's have no case for libel, since Amaral's thesis comes from facts within the PJ files. Once again they are just trying to grab some more money. If they eventually go ahead with their attempted libel action, all their contradictions, lies etc will be thrust into the spotlight. Since they and their bogus detectives have failed to produce a single solitary piece of evidence to support their story and prove Amaral's thesis is libellous, they'll just end up making an @r$e of themselves yet again.

ed1976 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:ed1976, since the Supreme Court ruled in Goncalo's favour last time what makes you think the Mc's have a reasonable case?

Quite simply the last case did not decide whether the book was libellous, it couldn't, it was not a libel trial. you can't ban a book because you dont like it, there has to be a good reason. The book ban was overturned, rightly in my opinion.The question of libel was to be decided at a later date.