Re: McCANNS v AMARAL VERDICT NEARING

Andrew Tue 10 Mar 2015, 10:31 am

Hear something I meant. Stupid phone.

Yes would be nice to celebrate later.

Especially after getting hopefully a few winners at Cheltenham too.

Guest Thu 12 Mar 2015, 4:22 pm

Is it possible that the McCanns could slap a superinjunction on the results of the Amaral vs McCanns case so that nothing can be revealed in the press or anywhere, i.e. Portugal, UK, especially if they were the losing party.

If the McCanns lose the case and they go for an appeal which may take any time, a year or more perhaps, would GA's book still be held in limbo awaiting publication in the UK and other countries?

Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. We seem to have been waiting for ages for any news so I was just curious as to whether the McCanns with their seemingly wealthy backers could keep any bad news under wraps regarding the outcome of this case.

Perhaps someone in Portugal may be able to shed some light on whether the McCanns can shut up anyone they chose if they have the money.

**candyfloss** Thu 12 Mar 2015, 4:33 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:Is it possible that the McCanns could slap a superinjunction on the results of the Amaral vs McCanns case so that nothing can be revealed in the press or anywhere, i.e. Portugal, UK, especially if they were the losing party.

If the McCanns lose the case and they go for an appeal which may take any time, a year or more perhaps, would GA's book still be held in limbo awaiting publication in the UK and other countries?

Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. We seem to have been waiting for ages for any news so I was just curious as to whether the McCanns with their seemingly wealthy backers could keep any bad news under wraps regarding the outcome of this case.

Very interesting point DFM and not sure if they could apply for one for this trial verdict.

Here is a snip from the Guardian.....

Libel lawyers Carter-Ruck and Schillings have proved adept at persuading judges that injunctions should now be granted on privacy grounds. Some tabloid newspapers are being served with "a handful" of such orders each week, according to media lawyers. The Guardian has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that could not be reported so far this year, compared with six in the whole of 2006 and five the year before.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck

Guest Thu 12 Mar 2015, 4:47 pm

candyfloss wrote:
Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:Is it possible that the McCanns could slap a superinjunction on the results of the Amaral vs McCanns case so that nothing can be revealed in the press or anywhere, i.e. Portugal, UK, especially if they were the losing party.

If the McCanns lose the case and they go for an appeal which may take any time, a year or more perhaps, would GA's book still be held in limbo awaiting publication in the UK and other countries?

Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. We seem to have been waiting for ages for any news so I was just curious as to whether the McCanns with their seemingly wealthy backers could keep any bad news under wraps regarding the outcome of this case.

Very interesting point DFM and not sure if they could apply for one for this trial verdict.

Here is a snip from the Guardian.....

Libel lawyers Carter-Ruck and Schillings have proved adept at persuading judges that injunctions should now be granted on privacy grounds. Some tabloid newspapers are being served with "a handful" of such orders each week, according to media lawyers. The Guardian has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that could not be reported so far this year, compared with six in the whole of 2006 and five the year before.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck

Thanks for the information Candyfloss. If that is the case and the McCanns have gone for a superinjuction it does make you wonder who is paying for it and why? I doubt that any money in the McCanns' "assist the family fund" would have enough left in it to cover a superinjunction.

Guest Thu 12 Mar 2015, 5:37 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:Is it possible that the McCanns could slap a superinjunction on the results of the Amaral vs McCanns case so that nothing can be revealed in the press or anywhere, i.e. Portugal, UK, especially if they were the losing party.

If the McCanns lose the case and they go for an appeal which may take any time, a year or more perhaps, would GA's book still be held in limbo awaiting publication in the UK and other countries?

Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. We seem to have been waiting for ages for any news so I was just curious as to whether the McCanns with their seemingly wealthy backers could keep any bad news under wraps regarding the outcome of this case.

Very interesting point DFM and not sure if they could apply for one for this trial verdict.

Here is a snip from the Guardian.....

Libel lawyers Carter-Ruck and Schillings have proved adept at persuading judges that injunctions should now be granted on privacy grounds. Some tabloid newspapers are being served with "a handful" of such orders each week, according to media lawyers. The Guardian has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that could not be reported so far this year, compared with six in the whole of 2006 and five the year before.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck

Thanks for the information Candyfloss. If that is the case and the McCanns have gone for a superinjuction it does make you wonder who is paying for it and why? I doubt that any money in the McCanns' "assist the family fund" would have enough left in it to cover a superinjunction.

I suppose if it's happened and there is no indication on either way,it depends on your point of view,if there as been a massive intervention by unknown agencies then a super whatever would be in place especially if Amaral has won,or it could be just as likely that the investigation is at such a critical stage that any adverse publicity against the McCanns could possibly jeopardise the investigation,more so because its a court ruling,thoughts only,out of the two I'd sooner go for the second scenario.

bluebell Thu 12 Mar 2015, 5:45 pm

Very interesting points you raised DFM.

As this is all about Portuguese law and courts would that apply?

I think superinjunctions don't exist in USA, but I've no knowledge of European law.

I thought Portugal had rights of free speech laws, so am hoping that nothing could prevent information about a public case being made known.

Hopefully someone with knowledge can inform us. All imo (and possibly incorrect). Rolling Eyes

Guest Fri 13 Mar 2015, 12:50 pm

Could be awhile yet.Curtesy of astro

http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/03/lisbon-trial-awaiting-verdict.html?m=1

astro wrote:Many of you who have been following the trial will be aware of the fact that the deadline for all parties to deliver their legal arguments to the court ended on the 26th of February.

Legal arguments were delivered by several parties and now we await a verdict from the Judge.

Article 607 of the Portuguese Civil Process Code stipulates an indicative period of 30 days after the process is concluded by the Judge. While this is not a legal deadline but merely a recommendation, several jurists believe that this case will receive a relatively swift decision.

Judicial holidays over the Easter period (March 29-April 6, dates are inclusive) mean that no verdict will be issued during this interruption of the Courts' work.

We trust in Justice and serenely await the Judge's decision, in solidarity with Gonçalo Amaral.

For your ongoing support, we thank you very, very much.

astro at Friday, March 13, 2015

**candyfloss** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 1:15 pm

caricature wrote:Could be awhile yet.Curtesy of astro

http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/03/lisbon-trial-awaiting-verdict.html?m=1

astro wrote:Many of you who have been following the trial will be aware of the fact that the deadline for all parties to deliver their legal arguments to the court ended on the 26th of February.

Legal arguments were delivered by several parties and now we await a verdict from the Judge.

Article 607 of the Portuguese Civil Process Code stipulates an indicative period of 30 days after the process is concluded by the Judge. While this is not a legal deadline but merely a recommendation, several jurists believe that this case will receive a relatively swift decision.

Judicial holidays over the Easter period (March 29-April 6, dates are inclusive) mean that no verdict will be issued during this interruption of the Courts' work.

We trust in Justice and serenely await the Judge's decision, in solidarity with Gonçalo Amaral.

For your ongoing support, we thank you very, very much.

astro at Friday, March 13, 2015

Thanks for bringing us that caricature. Still a long wait then, I just don't understand it when the judge had already given her reasons proved and not proved. Very frustrating this waiting game!

chirpyinsect Fri 13 Mar 2015, 1:26 pm

Thanks Caricature for posting that. Like us all I have been anxiously awaiting the verdict. At least we can hope it will be concluded soon.

Guest Fri 13 Mar 2015, 2:09 pm

caricature wrote:Could be awhile yet.Curtesy of astro

http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/03/lisbon-trial-awaiting-verdict.html?m=1

astro wrote:Many of you who have been following the trial will be aware of the fact that the deadline for all parties to deliver their legal arguments to the court ended on the 26th of February.

Legal arguments were delivered by several parties and now we await a verdict from the Judge.

Article 607 of the Portuguese Civil Process Code stipulates an indicative period of 30 days after the process is concluded by the Judge. While this is not a legal deadline but merely a recommendation, several jurists believe that this case will receive a relatively swift decision.

Judicial holidays over the Easter period (March 29-April 6, dates are inclusive) mean that no verdict will be issued during this interruption of the Courts' work.

We trust in Justice and serenely await the Judge's decision, in solidarity with Gonçalo Amaral.

For your ongoing support, we thank you very, very much.

astro at Friday, March 13, 2015

Many thanks caricature for keeping us posted and thanks also to astro.

Andrew Fri 13 Mar 2015, 2:41 pm

Thanks from me as well.

Will put the champagne away for a bit then.

chirpyinsect Fri 13 Mar 2015, 3:37 pm

Correction welcome if I am wrong but did the trial not end in January?

**candyfloss** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 3:41 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:Correction welcome if I am wrong but did the trial not end in January?

Well yes according to the thread below, on the 21st January, and they had a month to put in legal arguments.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t513p75-libel-damages-trial-mccanns-v-amaral-updates-21-01-15

costello Fri 13 Mar 2015, 3:47 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:Correction welcome if I am wrong but did the trial not end in January?

Yes, but I am sure there was the 30 day period for closing arguments or W.O.C. I may be wrong though.

chirpyinsect Fri 13 Mar 2015, 5:35 pm

costello wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:Correction welcome if I am wrong but did the trial not end in January?

Yes, but I am sure there was the 30 day period for closing arguments or W.O.C. I may be wrong though.

Just thought if it ended in January then the 30 days takes us to near end Feb.
Yes just re read it and the Macs filed the WOC stuff on 23 Jan.
ETA add dates

bluebell Fri 13 Mar 2015, 5:42 pm

Do I understand it right? They had to put their legal arguments by 26th February then the judge needs to consider these.

It should be 30 days but could be longer.

I just wonder what legal arguments have been put - I am so, so curious, but must be patient.

Andrew Fri 13 Mar 2015, 6:04 pm

Why can't things be simple and straight forward.

costello Fri 13 Mar 2015, 6:48 pm

I have to say but the cynic in me has always thought that there wouldn't be a decision on the damages trial until Brenda Leyland's inquest and strangely enough Sonia Poulton's documentary. For some reason I think everything will (and is planned) to come out at the same time.

bluebell Fri 13 Mar 2015, 6:50 pm

Andrew wrote:Why can't things be simple and straight forward.

Well, keep the champagne on ice Andrew. Fingers crossed indeed.

bluebell Fri 13 Mar 2015, 6:53 pm

costello wrote:I have to say but the cynic in me has always thought that there wouldn't be a decision on the damages trial until Brenda Leyland's inquest and strangely enough Sonia Poulton's documentary. For some reason I think everything will (and is planned) to come out at the same time.

@ costello - Sorry to be dim, but can you remind me when these two (inquest and documentary) are due? Thanks.

**candyfloss** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 6:54 pm

bluebell wrote:
costello wrote:I have to say but the cynic in me has always thought that there wouldn't be a decision on the damages trial until Brenda Leyland's inquest and strangely enough Sonia Poulton's documentary. For some reason I think everything will (and is planned) to come out at the same time.

@ costello - Sorry to be dim, but can you remind me when these two (inquest and documentary) are due? Thanks.

Inquest is 20th March bluebell, and docu is end of March - we don't have an actual date for that as yet.

bluebell Fri 13 Mar 2015, 7:00 pm

candyfloss wrote:
bluebell wrote:
costello wrote:I have to say but the cynic in me has always thought that there wouldn't be a decision on the damages trial until Brenda Leyland's inquest and strangely enough Sonia Poulton's documentary. For some reason I think everything will (and is planned) to come out at the same time.

@ costello - Sorry to be dim, but can you remind me when these two (inquest and documentary) are due? Thanks.
Inquest is 20th March bluebell, and docu is end of March - we don't have an actual date for that as yet.

Thank you candyfloss. flower

All coinciding with Easter it seems.

Andrew Fri 13 Mar 2015, 8:03 pm

bluebell wrote:
Andrew wrote:Why can't things be simple and straight forward.

Well, keep the champagne on ice Andrew. Fingers crossed indeed.

To be fair the champagne is all but gone after a successful Cheltenham.

Always more in stock to toast G.A though.

This Sonia doc... Still in 2 minds...

Hot air?

costello Sat 14 Mar 2015, 7:53 am

I don't think so Andrew. What with Richard Hall's follow up documentary out soon, I can't see Sonia Poulton setting herself up for a fall, too much at stake. I think her documentary will be quite explosive. I really hope I am right on this, fingers crossed.

Andrew Sat 14 Mar 2015, 8:09 am

Really hope you are right as well costello.

Time will soon tell I guess.

Sponsored content

McCANNS v AMARAL VERDICT NEARING