LAST DAY OF LIBEL TRIAL 8th July 2014 DISCUSSION AND NEWS

Miraflores wrote:Shame the BBC isn't allowing comments on the statement that Sean is supposed to have made. I would be very very easy to point out that the McCann's had Amaral's book banned in September 2009, before Sean could have heard anything either on a radio or in the playground.

But carry on MSM - you have been sycophantic to the McCanns so why change now.

Gerry McCann wrote:Whoever took Madeleine is still out there and whoever the person is they must have been laughing these past six years.

Angelique wrote:

joel27 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

joel27 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:David Wuffler ‏@Heavy_Dave  · 1m  
In Lisbon, Gerry #mccann answers a question that hadn't been asked : "I just want to say that the dog did not smell blood."

Why is the first thought, what brought out the need to raise it, is there something new that suggests or adds to the previous findings.

Edit Why just mention blood ?

Yes I would like to see the video of this, did Gerry just blurt it out at the end?

Gerry McCann is trying to discredit the very thing that stands in his way........the dogs. But this is one thing that cannot be explained away, so when he was on the public platform, today, he took the decision to bring the dogs up, when no one had asked him about them, but, thankfully, the judge told him to SHUT UP, or words to the effect.

I get the discredit bit and the judge shutting him up, but, something is bothering him, something that means he has to get out the discredit of the dog evidence. I cannot believe he was not word perfect practiced for today in court but its the bits when your finished that catches you out.  Somewhere into his mind there was a need to discredit the dogs and the evidence of blood. Its I am not sure "trigger in his head" its not about impact of the book the conclusion of the findings. Blood in the apartment nose bleed anything could explain it the dog finding it but that trigger says it has to be explained.  Ok its small thing but just my first thought.

Yes - I agree - something is bothering him about the dogs and blood. He knows OG has had dogs in PdL but I wonder if they have searched somewhere which is sensitive.

joel27 wrote:

Angelique wrote:

joel27 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

joel27 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:David Wuffler ‏@Heavy_Dave  · 1m  
In Lisbon, Gerry #mccann answers a question that hadn't been asked : "I just want to say that the dog did not smell blood."

Why is the first thought, what brought out the need to raise it, is there something new that suggests or adds to the previous findings.

Edit Why just mention blood ?

Yes I would like to see the video of this, did Gerry just blurt it out at the end?

Gerry McCann is trying to discredit the very thing that stands in his way........the dogs. But this is one thing that cannot be explained away, so when he was on the public platform, today, he took the decision to bring the dogs up, when no one had asked him about them, but, thankfully, the judge told him to SHUT UP, or words to the effect.

I get the discredit bit and the judge shutting him up, but, something is bothering him, something that means he has to get out the discredit of the dog evidence. I cannot believe he was not word perfect practiced for today in court but its the bits when your finished that catches you out.  Somewhere into his mind there was a need to discredit the dogs and the evidence of blood. Its I am not sure "trigger in his head" its not about impact of the book the conclusion of the findings. Blood in the apartment nose bleed anything could explain it the dog finding it but that trigger says it has to be explained.  Ok its small thing but just my first thought.

Yes - I agree - something is bothering him about the dogs and blood. He knows OG has had dogs in PdL but I wonder if they have searched somewhere which is sensitive.

OG is that means that Redwood has some faith or someone in OG has faith in their use, so you might be right there is something they found explains the cryptic tweet from WilliamThoms possibly......

jeanmonroe wrote:GM said (verbatim) "whoever took Madeleine is still out there, whoever that person is, or, or persons, they must have been laughing during these last 6 years at what's been told in the book, that there was no abduction that, that, y'know there's no predator out there, there is and he may str, he or SHE or THEY might strike again"

SHE? SHE? WHO the fcuk is SHE?

Guess that BLOWS 'Tanner MAN' right off their website then!

Unless, of course, Tannerman could have been a 'drag' artist!

But i reckon 'eagle eyed' Jane would have seen through that 'disguise', in an instant, even FROM the 50 (FIFTY) METRES as BOTH the McCanns in sworn, written, SIGNED, statements have said THAT was the 'distance' JT 'SAW' the 'abductor/predator' carrying Madeleine off, FROM!

Can't wait for their 'new' FEMALE 'suspect' to take her place, on their website!

Probably KM, (K Middlleton).............they wish!

Would add a nice touch of 'class' though, wouldn't it?

"Our Maddie WAS 'abducted' by royalty, we'd expect nothing less really, to be honest, as she was the most 'beautiful child that was ever born, Ask Jon'

Strangely though, NO 'predator' had 'abducted' any child in PDL in the 7 YEARS 'before' they went there, and NO 'predator' has 'abducted' any child in PDL 'since' they left there!

That's NOT a good 'strike' rate is it?

sallypelt wrote:Love Don't Live Here ‏@PoveySarah  · 13 hrs  
GM was ordained to the highest 33° Sovereign Inspector rank, at 1330 on Friday 13 July 2007, at Freemasons Hall, London .#mccann

candyfloss wrote:Babalou ‏@B_balou  · 2 mins  
@LHLNews OMG - they look terrified on some of those! http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/fotos/sociedade/1/354049 … I almost feel sorry for them.
#McCann pic.twitter.com/q8QNjdbtvp

Indricotherium wrote:Whether they have something to hide or not, I think they have really missed a PR opportunity- it would look a lot better if they were insisting all this money was to be given to children's charities rather than themselves.

Angelique wrote:"As she finished her evidence Kate, 46, said: “I do believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe freedom of speech means the freedom to slander.”

But he hasn't slandered anyone - he has never said anything that could be construed as slander. His Book only repeated that which is in the PJ Files. 

Where is the evidence GA has slandered the McCanns ?

How come now this is about slander?

Cristobell wrote:Odious woman using her son to squeeze sympathy and cash.  How will Sean feel seeing his name and his words on the tabloid front pages, and will he take the blame when the McCanns lose?

Cristobell wrote:Odious woman using her son to squeeze sympathy and cash.  How will Sean feel seeing his name and his words on the tabloid front pages, and will he take the blame when the McCanns lose?

Cristobell wrote:Odious woman using her son to squeeze sympathy and cash.  How will Sean feel seeing his name and his words on the tabloid front pages, and will he take the blame when the McCanns lose?

jeanmonroe wrote:Ooops!

Kate Burley has just said 'Gerry McCann was in Portugal talking about whoever 'abducted' or 'MURDERED' his daughter Madeleine!

Really Kate?

Really, i didn't hear him say 'murdered' but, if he did..............................then you've just got yourself a WORLD EXLUSIVE!

You must have better 'lugs' than me, and i'm wearing a neck brace, in case you want to come 'round' and THROTTLE me!!

VeraWannabe wrote:Look at those laughter lines....! What could have been THAT funny?

Angelique wrote:"As she finished her evidence Kate, 46, said: “I do believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe freedom of speech means the freedom to slander.”

But he hasn't slandered anyone - he has never said anything that could be construed as slander. His Book only repeated that which is in the PJ Files. 

Where is the evidence GA has slandered the McCanns ?

How come now this is about slander?

Tangled Web wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Odious woman using her son to squeeze sympathy and cash.  How will Sean feel seeing his name and his words on the tabloid front pages, and will he take the blame when the McCanns lose?

Any 'normal' parent would not thrust their child into the news like this, no matter what they had said. If this whole 'libel' case is hinged on what Sean 'said' last October (not when they inititated proceedings in 2009?) then they are in big trouble. Once again, it's the children I feel sorry for. Poor Sean, I wonder if he gets teased because he cried the night before Madeleine went missing when the 'abductor' did a 'practise run'.

I have a near nine year old son and it's quite a self conscious age to be at. The only people damaging the twins are their own parents   

Absolutely despicable.