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

Even if they find someone to pin the disappearance on and close the case, the rumours will continue to dog the McCanns for the rest of their days. There are just too many inconsistencies.

@Christobell

gr8 post way back on pg 4. Agree 100% with all points you raised
I am a newbie here, as a member, but have been reading here for a little while now, always find myself nodding in agreement whilst reading your posts.

Personally I find it quite unfathomable that the Mccans would go down this libel road, apart from of course, the fact they in so damn deep they have to keep up the charade :/ Well that & their seemingly insatiable desire for money from any source :/
As many have rightly pointed out earlier in thread, all their 'evidence' of this supposed harm that G Amaral's book has 'caused them' is hearsay. Not a shred of actual, FACTUAL, evidence at all, in fact when asked by the judge Gerry denies knowledge/shows lack of interest in other books written in same vein as the book they taking action over. How very bizarre. Also bizarre is how they can possibly claim all ills that have supposedly befallen on them as a RESULT of said book. When in fact,it would be more realistic to attribute their 'stress' on the loss of their daughter. Now as for affecting 'search for Madelaine' hmmm, a search they themselves, by all accounts, NEVER actively, physically participated in.... well I would suggest the parents were the cause of many of us not 'searching'. Their glaring discrepancies when questioned, the availability of the FACTS of the case(PJ files etc), mean that more & more of the public, like ourselves, are informing ourselves on the events of 3rd May 2007, THAT is the reason Mccans have less support/donations(or 'search been affected' translated Mccan spk). I hope beyond hope that sense prevails & senior Amaral wins! :)

Btw hello all, I am a newbie but have been informing myself (mccan files was my starting point) on this case for a while now :) *waves*

SuspiciousMinds wrote:But nothing is going to clear them of possible involvement unless the case is solved once and for all, and someone else is punished for it. The libel trial was never going to change that. It was just a way to punish Amaral and get more money, and if they're going to lose then they need to engineer a way out that will give them all the media sympathy and paint the Portuguese as the baddies. Again.

They could get years of martydom out of this - anything negative in their future life or the twins` future life will always be blamed on the Portuguese and Goncalo.

Woofer wrote:

They could get years of martydom out of this - anything negative in their future life or the twins` future life will always be blamed on the Portuguese and Goncalo.

But only a very, very small percentage of people will believe them - the rest of us will just think 'Yeah, yeah whatever! Go and crawl back under the stone from which you slithered.'

BlueBag wrote:

Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. 

The only "right" I've heard mentioned is Madeleine's "right to be found".

There is no such legal right - Kate invented that one.

There is no case here.

Didn't Madeleine have a right 'not to be lost' also?

suzyjohnson wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. 

The only "right" I've heard mentioned is Madeleine's "right to be found".

There is no such legal right - Kate invented that one.

There is no case here.

Didn't Madeleine have a right 'not to be lost' also?

Yes exactly. Ihis is described in "Article 19" of the Convention on the rights of the child. for example:- Protection rights keeping safe from harm

"Article 19

....... children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents ....".  However, no one has looked at Madeline's human rights it seems?

I don't know if the above Convention on rights of the child has been brought into legislation in Portugal and the UK. However, if it has then both governments should be ashamed of not abiding by the contents, in my opinion.

convention on the rights of the child. Protection rights keeping safe from harm

 

suzyjohnson wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:


It is possible that whoever is their guardian - on what must be many occasions of absence - is someone in whom they can confide and perhaps talk to on the subject of their missing sister? The McCanns have made such a big thing of it, what with the media coverage as well, that it must be so hard for the twins to escape this subject, which surely must rather dominate their lives?

One wonders also about their class-mates; every one of them must be aware of the issue of missing Madeleine 

I don't know but if I had started a libel trial and knew that it was likely to be reported in the British press and on the radio and television, I think I would have brought the subject up with my children first - and told them not to worry - instead of waiting to see who else might tell them first because it's inevitable that they would hear about it somehow.

Absolutely agree.  I would tell my children.

The MCs have used the media to their advantage. The media are still reporting the story of MBM.
Sean and Amelia are not little children now, children of their age are FAR more savvy than their parents think, and if THEY are not you can bet some of their friends are.
This bubble of secrecy and lies will be stretched to breaking point.

What  do/will kandg do when their children come home day after day with questions?
 Do Sean and Amelie go to friends houses after school? The Internet is easy to access.

If this libel trial goes in their favour ( please let this not be the case) they will never be in the clear because secondary school  ( if not before) will be the time the twins will get to hear or find out more of the truth and the lies.

I really feel for those poor children. 

Miraflores wrote:Even if they find someone to pin the disappearance on and close the case, the rumours will continue to dog the McCanns for the rest of their days. There are just too many inconsistencies.

Haha! Yes those damned dogs will always be a bone of contention!

Don' t they just hate those dogs! 

. wrote:suzyjohnson

Didn't Madeleine have a right 'not to be lost' also?

Great point Suzy but please stay with the programme. It's not about Madeleine. It's all about K&G.

The Illusionists



Confronted with the dog’s findings, the parents of Madeleine McCann (supported by FSS) denied the quality (hence veracity) of the evidence presented and its immediate implications: their daughter’s death and their own guilt.
Would innocent people not be in shock, and want the body to be found to provide a proper burial?
Imo guilty people would most definitely deny any evidence from the dogs, and refuse to answer questions since it would open the door to life imprisonment.
I don’t think they have any moral grounds to make libel claims, hindering a police investigation should be enough to allow anyone to raise questions.
I cannot understand how the judge could say she’s not there to rule on the veracity of the book’s content, unless she has already found solid grounds to rule based on something else. Like the previous ruling on the book, or not being entitled to make such claims, or evidence provided to court by them being inconclusive, or their sought for VIP status making their claims void of any truthful meaning, or GA being entitled to mention an investigation in which he was the chief inspector, or the right to freedom of speech. Or all of the aforementioned.
I think, unlikely though, she can also rule on the basis the investigation did not determine the parents’ guilt, only put forward that hypothesis. She wouldn’t be ruling on the veracity of things, just have in consideration their current legal status as non-arguidos.
Never will their 1,2 million request be attended, the amount depends on the judge to determine.
Everyone seems to worry a lot about GA’s trial, but in Portugal trials can last forever and GA knew it from the beginning. One day we’ll know the judge’s ruling, then, like usual, the trial will continue in another courtroom until the last possible proceeding is made. Will TM endure all that? I doubt it, since they have shown no legal insight up to now and still choose to rely on public displays of Houdini-like tricks in a pathetic attempt to bury the facts.

Monty Heck wrote:

Seek truth wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

XTC wrote:

Woofer wrote:XTC - at the last session (before this recent one) the McCanns were ordered by the Judge to provide proof that the Ward (Justice Hogg) had agreed to the McCanns taking out this Writ on Maddie`s behalf and her agreement to be dated BEFORE the Writ was taken out obviously.

Equally GA was supposed to provide proof of his earnings from the book IIRC.

Yes I read that.

Has the answer been given yet?
They have a time limit to come up with an answer. 30 days?

30 days deadline is already over, but no mention was made of this in any of the reportings.


The Tax affair delay maybe a reason whilst awaiting the answer.

I'm surprised the Judge allows them to source this info from Portugal's equivalent of IRAS.
This is useful only if mcs win, for determination of compensation purpose.
From this, it is difficult to gauge Judge's inclination.

Question is: will there be a change of judge after the judiciary reorganisation in Sept.

"This is useful only if mcs win"


That's what I was thinking but I can't prove it. Wonder where we can find this out.?

On the other hand Snr Amaral has had his assets frozen for a number of years, so perhaps the judge is seeking to establish whether or what financial damage he has suffered due to this case being brought.  If the McCs lose this case it will surely not be a case of them simply walking away with only their own legal bills to worry about.  The court would surely have to consider the defence costs as well as any reparations to the defendants for any loss of income as a result of this case.  If the defendants were not as a minimus returned to the status quo then that would in itself be an injustice.

Somebody with knowledge of Portuguese judicial system may be able to enlighten us.
I think reparation or compensation is not a defaulted right to the defendants here under the Portuguese legal system.

I've no idea whether defendants can file a claim for compensation to be considered under part of this process, subject to appreciation by same judge. Or, to seek recompense would defendants need to file a claim against the mccanns for malicious litigation, lost of income, damages, etc that will be subjected to another due process?

The claim for compensation was from plaintiffs. In a win situation they may be awarded a sum to be determined and decided by the judge, not necessarily the sum they demanded.  Historically, Portugal is not known for big award pay out for libel; besides the mcs did not suffer loss of income so I would imagine an award sum would be more in line with past practice, rather than amount sought by claimants.

If they lost they may have to bear the costs of defendants as well, the sum of costs will be as determined by the Judge.
To reclaim legal costs defendants will have to file the figures with court, subject to judge's appreciation and approval.

The judge pointedly asked Gerry if he had read the various other books on the subject of Maddie's disappearance.  He said no.  Well you can be sure that the judge has read those books - all of them.  And she will have read the police files.  And it's shelving summary.    The evidence of the dogs, the detailed report by Grimes.  All of it.   And so whilst she is correct that it is not the 'truth' of the claims that matters - she will certainly find Gerry's outburst about the dogs revealing...  

Perhaps the McCanns realise that the case is lost, and their new tactic is simply to drag the case out as long as possible so that Amaral's assets remain frozen for as long as possible.  Sadly, in Portugal, that seems to be a very easy task...

Yeah keep his assets frozen, let his friends have to help him out, but they used money from FIND MADDIE FUND to pay their mortgage.   I know I have said this before but this pees me off big time.

Did they really pay their mortage with money from the foundation? I thought these things had to have an independent person in charge to make sure no one but the true case (searching for Madeleine) received money?

Versailles wrote:Did they really pay their mortage with money from the foundation? I thought these things had to have an independent person in charge to make sure no one but the true case (searching for Madeleine) received money?

They used the fund to make 2 mortgage payments, Versailles.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html


 What are the objects of Madeleine's Fund?
Madeleine's fund is a non-charitable not-for-profit company, which has been established to help find Madeleine McCann, to support her family, and to bring her abductors to justice. Any surplus funds will be used to help families and missing children in the United Kingdom, Portugal and elsewhere in similar circumstances.
The full objects of the Fund are:

• To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
  
• To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice;
  
• To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
  

If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
13.    I've heard that Kate and Gerry McCann might benefit from the Fund. Is this true?
Yes – the fund has provided support to Kate and Gerry. One of the reasons the fund was established was to support Madeleine's family and such financial assistance is one of its specific objectives. This assistance to Kate and Gerry was a subsistence allowance, provided whilst they were on unpaid leave from work and enabled them to push forward the campaign to find Madeleine. The directors approve all payments to Kate and Gerry, with family members not having a vote. Financial support given to Kate and Gerry since Gerry returned to work is negligible.
There are currently six directors of the Fund, at 11 July 2011. They are:
·        Peter Hubner; a retired consultant, friend of the McCanns, appointed 21 May 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 2 ; Resigned 19 September 2010.
·        Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher, Kate's Great Uncle, appointed 16 May 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 1;
·        John McCann, a medical representative, Gerry's brother, appointed 16 May 2007, - No. of Company appointments: 1; Resigned 23 July 2010. 
·        Esther McVey, managing director of a public relations & communications company, Kate's schoolfriend, appointed 20 June 2007, No. of Company appointments: 1; (Resigned) - replaced by Edward Smethurst:
·        Edward Smethurst, commercial law specialist with wealthy McCann supporter Brian Kennedy's company, appointment announced 09 January 2008
·        Dr Doug Skehan, clinical director in cardiology at Glenfield Hospital, Gerry's boss, appointed 16 May 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 2; Resigned 24 August 2010. 
·        Philip Tomlinson, a retired solicitor and former coroner in Leicestershire, appointed 20 June 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 5; (Resigned) replaced by Jon Corner:
·        Jon Corner, film producer and friend of the McCanns (wife is a longtime friend of Kate) and Godparent to the twins, Amelie and Sean, appointment announced 09 January 2008. Reportedly drafted in to help Clarence Mitchell look at offers they have received, such as making a docudrama or writing a book.
·        Michael Linnett, a retired accountant, appointed 15 August 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 8
·        Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine McCann, appointed 12 November 2008
·        Kate McCann, mother of Madeleine McCann, appointed 12 November 2008
·        Company Secretary: BWB Secretarial Limited, appointed: 15 May 2007 - No. of Company appointments: 26
·        BWB (No.2) Limited was set up as a director on 15 May 2007 and resigned the next day, 16 May 2007

Mods - not sure where to put this article please remove and place as you wish, thank you  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10967191/Couple-claimed-fake-bomb-detector-could-even-find-Madeleine-McCann.html

Couple claimed fake bomb detector 'could even find Madeleine McCann'
Couple claimed devices were made in a high security 'laboratory' and could be used to track down drugs, explosives and even people, court told

mail_subject SAMUEL AND JOAN TREE FAKE BOMB DETECTORS Couple claimed fake bomb detector 'could even find Madeleine McCann'" itemprop="image"/>
Samuel Tree, 66, (R) and his wife Joan Tree , 61, (L) arriving at the Old Bailey Photo: NICHOLAS RAZZELL

By Keith Perry and agency
2:48PM BST 14 Jul 2014


A married couple claimed bogus bomb detectors made in their garden shed could help find missing Madeleine McCann, a court heard yesterday.
Samuel Tree, 67, and his wife Joan, 62, sold the fake machines for thousands of pounds each, the Old Bailey was told.
They claimed that the devices were made in a high security 'laboratory' and could be used to track down drugs, explosives and even specific people.
But they were actually just plastic boxes with antennas stuck on top that cost a couple of pounds to build in their back garden, the court heard.
Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse QC said: "This is a fraud case about dishonesty and deception but it has some highly unusual features.
Related Articles

• Government was paid thousands to promote fake bomb detector
  27 Jan 2014
  
• Businessman jailed for seven years over fake bomb detectors
  20 Aug 2013
  
• Australian MP smuggles hoax pipe bomb into parliament
  26 May 2014
  

The two people in the dock are a married couple.
"For many years they made a product, called an Alpha 6, in a shed in the back garden of their home.
"They claimed that this product was capable of detecting the presence of drugs and explosives and other substances and objects.
"They have even claimed that is it capable of finding missing people and on one occasion a claim was being made it was capable of even finding Madeleine McCann.
"These claims were false.
"The Alpha 6 device is nothing more than a plastic box with antennae stuck on the top and some pieces of paper inside.
'It cost a few pounds to make and yet was sold to agents and suppliers for hundreds and sometimes thousands of times this amount.
"The basic allegation is that the device does not work and they knew it did not work but they made it and supplied it to be sold for profit.
"Despite the fact that these devices did not work, people did astonishingly buy them."
The sham product was sold through Keygrove and Keygrove International, companies run from the couple's home in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, the court heard.
'The device was called the Alpha 6 Molecular Detector, a revolutionary product, according to the marketing material, for search and detection of specific contraband substances,' Ms Whitehouse said.
'There were apparently a number of variants - the devices could detect drugs, explosives and even particular people.
'It was claimed that the device could detect substances as small as 15 millionths of a gram at a range of up to 500 metres and was powered by nothing more than the static electricity generated by the body of the person operating the device.'
Samuel based his design on the American-made 'Quadro Tracker', a product originally marketed as a golf ball finder, the court heard.
The Quadro has now been banned across the world and its inventor Malcolm Roe came to Britain and stayed with the Trees.
'Sam Tree went to the United States in 1995 and saw this golf ball finder - Quadro Tracker - in action,' Ms Whitehouse said.
'He brought it back with him.
'This device could, it was claimed, detect the presence of drugs.
'It plainly did not impress the American authorities because in 1996, after a civil trial, the sale of Quadro Tracker was banned across the world because it was wholly ineffective and was being sold fraudulently.'
She added: "Mr and Mrs Tree were aware of the problems with the Quadro because Malcolm Roe was a friend of Mr and Mrs Tree.
'"Through this friendship they knew all about the failure of his detector device and Mr Tree went to America to give evidence on behalf in the civil trial."
The Trees previously sold crime scene equipment, including fingerprint powder, to various police forces across the country.
But they turned their hand to inventing in 1997 with their first detector device - the Mole.
The Mole was discontinued in 2004 because it did not work and Samuel moved on to the Alpha 6, the court heard.
"It was no more effective than the Quadro or the Mole," Ms Whitehouse said.
"There is evidence that Sam Tree was well aware of that."
The first batch of plastic boxes cost £5.10 each to make, the court heard.
The Trees ordered £65,000 worth to be made in China and shipped to the UK by product design firm Blue MT.
"The impression given is one of sophistication, and effectiveness based upon scientific principles," said Ms Whitehouse.
"The reality was that Samuel and Joan Tree were assembling the devices in the garden of their semi-detached house in Dunstable with plastic boxes made in China, glue and bits of paper."
Samuel and Joan Tree, of Dunstable, Beds, both deny making an article for use in fraud.
The trial continues.

parapono wrote:

As far as I know the 30 day period will start once all parties have held their closing arguments.
ID's closing statement, she claimed 3 hour was sceduled on the afternoon of July 8th.
The  statements of the 'defending' parties were planned for July 10th.
All that is now postponed till September/October.
No new date atm. Thirty day period will only start then.

Kindest regards

parapono

I understood it differently.
I'd thought the 30-day period starts on the Judge's ruling date that the Mccanns have no authority to represent her (on Amaral's submitted documentation).
Based on that the mccanns were given 30 days to come up with said document.
I believe the date of that ruling was in June something if IIRC.
If they should fail to produce the document what it means is Maddie's name will be lifted, affecting only the asking sum, but not the case.

The July 10 date was cancelled because Court is waiting for the IRAS document sought by plaintiffs.
No idea whether resume date will be in Sept or even Oct because of judiciary system reshuffling taking place in Sept.
If reshuffling means judges are reallocated courts or change of locations, that might result in a change of judge.
We shall have to wait and see.

So, there you have it, in all it's 'glory'!

Straight from the horse's mouth!

KATE MCCANN.

"The REASON why we're taking ACTION against Goncalo Amaral is the damage that he's done for Madeleine, THAT'S OUR MAIN FOCUS"!

NOT, at first, A SINGLE  'REASON' ABOUT THEMSELVES, BEING PERSONALLY 'DAMAGED'

BUT 'added' (as an 'afterthought', imo)

The writ says of Dr Kate McCann that she is ‘deeply and seriously depressed”. The writ goes on to describe both of the McCanns as suffering from:

■permanent anxiety
■insomnia
■lack of appetite
■irritability
■indefinable fear
In the writ, according to the Sunday People, the McCanns further describe both of themselves as:

■“totally destroyed”
■“irreparably damaged”, and
■“totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view”

THE LIBEL CASE WAS ALL ONLY (at first   ) 'FOR MADELEINE' says KM.

The REASON 'WHY' they took 'action' against GA was 'for damage' he supposedly did 'for Madeleine'

NOT THEM!

I wonder what the Judge will MAKE of THAT!

eta: watch GM's er, um 'cough', like we've all seen in other 'interviews', when KM's mouth starts 'running away'  

aiyoyo wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:

Seek truth wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

XTC wrote:

Woofer wrote:XTC - at the last session (before this recent one) the McCanns were ordered by the Judge to provide proof that the Ward (Justice Hogg) had agreed to the McCanns taking out this Writ on Maddie`s behalf and her agreement to be dated BEFORE the Writ was taken out obviously.

Equally GA was supposed to provide proof of his earnings from the book IIRC.

Yes I read that.

Has the answer been given yet?
They have a time limit to come up with an answer. 30 days?

30 days deadline is already over, but no mention was made of this in any of the reportings.


The Tax affair delay maybe a reason whilst awaiting the answer.

I'm surprised the Judge allows them to source this info from Portugal's equivalent of IRAS.
This is useful only if mcs win, for determination of compensation purpose.
From this, it is difficult to gauge Judge's inclination.

Question is: will there be a change of judge after the judiciary reorganisation in Sept.

"This is useful only if mcs win"


That's what I was thinking but I can't prove it. Wonder where we can find this out.?

On the other hand Snr Amaral has had his assets frozen for a number of years, so perhaps the judge is seeking to establish whether or what financial damage he has suffered due to this case being brought.  If the McCs lose this case it will surely not be a case of them simply walking away with only their own legal bills to worry about.  The court would surely have to consider the defence costs as well as any reparations to the defendants for any loss of income as a result of this case.  If the defendants were not as a minimus returned to the status quo then that would in itself be an injustice.

Somebody with knowledge of Portuguese judicial system may be able to enlighten us.
I think reparation or compensation is not a defaulted right to the defendants here under the Portuguese legal system.

I've no idea whether defendants can file a claim for compensation to be considered under part of this process, subject to appreciation by same judge.  Or, to seek recompense would defendants need to file a claim against the mccanns for malicious litigation, lost of income, damages, etc that will be subjected to another due process?

The claim for compensation was from plaintiffs. In a win situation they may be awarded a sum to be determined and decided by the judge, not necessarily the sum they demanded.  Historically, Portugal is not known for big award pay out for libel; besides the mcs did not suffer loss of income so I would imagine an award sum would be more in line with past practice, rather than amount sought by claimants.

If they lost they may have to bear the costs of defendants as well, the sum of costs will be as determined by the Judge.
To reclaim legal costs defendants will have to file the figures with court, subject to judge's  appreciation and approval.

Thanks Aiyoyo, most helpful.  Would have thought Dra Duarte would have advised the McCs regarding low award levels, so they could decide whether bringing a case which could result in a considerable net loss once fees were taken into account, even in a win situation was worth bringing to court.  Perhaps that is what she did and the McCs decided to go ahead anyway.  Despite the 1.2M claim this could be less about the money and more about making Snr Amaral feel fear and pain, particularly of the financial kind.

Amazing photograph proving Alfred Hitchcock is alive and well seen here scouring town for the nearest Burger King with Philomena McCann.

 

Monty Heck wrote:
  Would have thought Dra Duarte would have advised the McCs regarding low award levels, so they could decide whether bringing a case which could result in a considerable net loss once fees were taken into account, even in a win situation was worth bringing to court.  Perhaps that is what she did and the McCs decided to go ahead anyway.  Despite the 1.2M claim this could be less about the money and more about making Snr Amaral feel fear and pain, particularly of the financial kind.

The way I see it ID is in it for herself, hoping to add a win for an international client onto her portfolio; while the mcs hope to gain financially for shutting Amaral up through out of court settlement. They must have gone in believing they'd a good case believing they can get a sizeable sum through negotiation.

Likely the historical award record was never ever mentioned.
Even if they did know about it, that would matter little if they believe their case to be exceptional and therefore historic records is not a yardstick of measurement.  There has never been a case where foreigner arguidos take Portugal State ex-police officer, TV station and publisher collectively to court; so in that sense the case is indeed exceptional and there is always a first for everything.

At some point in the process they must have realised their case has no standing leg that is why they initiated the out of court settlement.  It's unheard of for plaintiffs to cave in.  Their action is indication they must have sensed their winning chance in court is slim.

In a win scenario and if historical record is something to go by, they may get an award that isn't sufficient to cover their legal costs, especially since cost of a long drawn out protracted case must be quite hefty.
In a lose scenario, the fund risks going bankrupt especially if they are ordered to pay legal costs of defendants as well.

Just back from hol’s so still trying to catch up.
 
The wifi over in Kos was ‘typically Greek’ and I gave up trying to follow threads as it took forever.
 
I did however download Joana’s transcripts to read and GM’s ‘dogs’ bit that he got shut up about has been plaguing me, yet only Cristobell seems to have really brought it up and it doesn’t seem to have been followed through. (Apologies if it has been somewhere on another thread)
 
‘Why bring the dogs into the public arena at this stage of the game’.
 
It makes no sense to me to even try and mention the dogs at this stage, when the supportive MSM & SY have seemingly long forgotten their existence.
 
GM knew the reporting response they received from three weeks ago and must have appreciated that a similar response was going to be received this time around, so why on earth even mention the dogs and give the papers a sniff (sorry!) of a story they have been unwilling to use for a number of years?
 
The only justification for it that I can come up with, is if he has been made aware that the dogs are soon to be brought back into play and he is therefore trying to get his retaliation in first, to use a footballing parlance.
 
One can only hope.
 

Doug D wrote:
‘Why bring the dogs into the public arena at this stage of the game’.
 
It makes no sense to me to even try and mention the dogs at this stage, when the supportive MSM & SY have seemingly long forgotten their existence.
 
GM knew the reporting response they received from three weeks ago and must have appreciated that a similar response was going to be received this time around, so why on earth even mention the dogs and give the papers a sniff (sorry!) of a story they have been unwilling to use for a number of years?
 
The only justification for it that I can come up with, is if he has been made aware that the dogs are soon to be brought back into play and he is therefore trying to get his retaliation in first, to use a footballing parlance.
 
One can only hope.
 

Absolutely why he is bringing up the dog's .I mentioned exactly this point last week  Somebody [ at SY or within the force  ]  if clearly giving him the heads up . and he is to quote our favourite phrase " he is trying to shape the perception of the narrative.

aiyoyo wrote:In a win scenario and if historical record is something to go by, they may get an award that isn't sufficient to cover their legal costs, especially since cost of a long drawn out protracted case must be quite hefty.
In a lose scenario, the fund risks going bankrupt especially if they are ordered to pay legal costs of defendants as well.

I don't believe in a million years that the McCanns' ever thought the case would reach court.
Nobody else, including the British Press, has ever called their bluff and I bet they thought that Dr Amaral would fold and try to settle out of court just like the others.
How annoyed they must have felt to realise that Dr Amaral had enough people who believed in him to help him pay his legal fees.
It's ironic, and must stick in their craw, that it was they who tried to settle out of court and Dr Amaral who told them to get stuffed.
I hope the McCanns lose the case, have to make huge payouts and have to sell their house to make the payments .
Well, I can wish.