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

ed1976 wrote:

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.

It makes absolute sense to me, the same way as they reached an agreement with TB in order to avoid a full libel trial

Inspectorfrost 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.

They may not have spelt it out using the words, non libellous, but that is pretty much what the Appeal Court decreed.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

Also, police investigations are immune from libel laws IIRC

Jean wrote:Ye gods, it's not Mr Smethurst is it?!!!!

ed1976 wrote:

There are a couple of points in the ruling that are plainly not true,

How accurate is the translation

Again, if this is true then the McCanns have no case. Im just not sure it is.

Châtelaine wrote:

Jean wrote:Ye gods, it's not Mr Smethurst is it?!!!!

***
That was on my mind too, I must admit. So I checked if ed1976 is an indication of the year of birth, would his age check with Smethursts ? It doesn't. Smethurst must be ±43 now and ed1976 would make him ± 37. But ... well ... you never know with these pseudonyms. I would just be a tad disappointed with the spelling - that would be under level for a lawyer, I think.

ed1976 wrote:There are a couple of points in the ruling that are plainly not true,

How accurate is the translation

ed1976 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

are you a lawyer ed?

what makes you ask that question

Hobs wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

are you a lawyer ed?

what makes you ask that question

Answering a question with a question indicates sensitivity

ed1976 wrote:

Inspectorfrost 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.

They may not have spelt it out using the words, non libellous, but that is pretty much what the Appeal Court decreed.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

Also, police investigations are immune from libel laws IIRC

There are a couple of points in the ruling that are plainly not true,

How accurate is the translation

Again, if this is true then the McCanns have no case. Im just not sure it is.

Dr What wrote:There is absolutely no evidence of any need to seek the truth by lawyers.They are there to get the best possible result for their clients.Expensive teams of lawyers are essentially bullies.Very persuasive, highly paid, and they like to think themselves refined.But they are bullies nonetheless.

I'm sure, at the outset, they would have anticipated that GA would have thrown it all in by now.As a result of a careful strategy,he had no financial backing, no job, frozen assets, no family life.He was isolated.He was easy pickings.Or so they thought.But one man with conviction is worth more than a bunch of paid helpers.

Like many others, I hope that one day, the Mccanns have to give evidence in Court under oath.To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.If the McCanns do have genuine faith as they have lead us to believe, then they will not want to be faced with that dilemma.Maybe, the whole objective now, is to avoid that deep moral conflict.

Inspectorfrost wrote:Did Ms Duarte ever return Mr Amarls books?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Did Ms Duarte ever return Mr Amarls books?

I believe so. As far as I remember, she delayed and delayed, but was under threat of a hefty penalty and had to in the end.

ed1976 wrote:I think I wiil leave it there until we have further news. We were alll expecting some answers with the trial starting and all we have is more questions. As I said, I don't think either side has caved in but their has been a change in direction now. both sworn to secrecy, thats why there is no official comment. Even in six months details of the settlement may remain confidential. im fairly sure there are very few books being sold now, if any. Amazon used to have a few foreign translations but they are gone now.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Sadly our Justice system is largely unjust.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I suppose when he's busy off Tweeting and Twitting the other member gets quite lonely

candyfloss wrote:Yes, very true Me. I can understand that tweet if Mr Amaral had wanted a settlement, then yes the McCanns would dictate the terms, but certainly not the other way around.