"Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
Page 1 of 2 • Share
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by PeterMac 03.08.14 15:14
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:"Everyone believes...."
Everyone?
Change it from "killed" to "know or reasonably suspect that Madeleine is dead" and you may get the following list
Even Clarence Mitchell ? Very probably KNOWS
David Cameron? Very probably SUSPECTS
DCI Redwood? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's mum? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's dad? Very probably KNOWS
Gerry's entire family? Very probably KNOW
The twins? Will very probably come to the conclusion sooner or later
All the residents of Rothley? Very probably SUSPECT
All the staff at Glenfield Hospital? Very probably SUSPECT
All the child neglect supporters on JATYK? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything
Lorraine Kelly? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Oprah Winfrey? Very probably SUSPECTS
Piers Morgan? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Isabel Duarte said "Everyone believes", not just "the minority that criticises Kate and Gerry" but "EVERYONE"
That's quite a lot of people, Isabel, that believe Kate and Gerrykilled their daughterknow or suspect that she is dead, and got rid of the corpse.
Who needs enemies when you've got a lawyer like that?
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by aiyoyo 03.08.14 15:22
PeterMac wrote:Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:"Everyone believes...."
Everyone?
Change it from "killed" to "know or reasonably suspect that Madeleine is dead" and you may get the following list
Even Clarence Mitchell ? Very probably KNOWS
David Cameron? Very probably SUSPECTS
DCI Redwood? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's mum?Very probably KNOWSknew knew (she was there, she told us so)
Kate's dad?Very probably KNOWSknew knew
Gerry's entire family? Very probably KNOW
The twins? Will very probably come to the conclusion sooner or later
All the residents of Rothley? Very probably SUSPECT
All the staff at Glenfield Hospital? Very probably SUSPECT
All the child neglect supporters on JATYK? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything
Lorraine Kelly? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Oprah Winfrey? Very probably SUSPECTS
Piers Morgan? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Isabel Duarte said "Everyone believes", not just "the minority that criticises Kate and Gerry" but "EVERYONE
That's quite a lot of people, Isabel, that believe Kate and Gerrykilled their daughterknow or suspect that she is dead, and got rid of the corpse.
Who needs enemies when you've got a lawyer like that?
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Hobs 03.08.14 17:20
As an addendum, I will say embedded is the statement A father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.
There is nothing unequivocal about those 15 words.
It is not open to misinterpretation.
It cannot be misunderstood.
The meaning is clear.
She doesn't use a minimising word instead of kill
She tells us killed : caused the death of, deprived of life.
She doesn't tell us someone else killed.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have lost their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have harmed their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.
She doesn't even tell us they didn't conceal her corpse.
She doesn't allow for someone else to have disposed of her corpse.
She plainly and clearly tells us her father and mother killed Maddie and disposed of her corpse.
The brain knows the truth and seeks to tell it as lying is stressful.
What i don't know is, if kate and gerry have admitted the truth to their attorney in order for her to prepare for the case and not allow them to walk into a trap of self incrimination, or, if she suspects the truth but due to client confidentiality cannot go the the PJ and say yep they did it etc.
As we saw in a previous appearance she couldn't say Maddie was abducted as a fact, she could only say this was what the parents told her
What they can do is advise their client and tell them to sit down and say nothing to anyone, make them work to find the proof rather than giving it to them on a plate.
They do have options, as far as i understand, that they can withdraw from a case if they know their client did the crime as charged and if placed on the witness stand will testify they didn't and perjure themselves.
They cannot knowingly allow their client to lie through their teeth on the stand as they themselves risk sanctions up to and including being kicked off the bar.
Many defence attornies in America will have their client do a polygraph to see what is revealed (truth or deception) and based on what the results are allow their client to take an LE one or to tell their client do not take it as you will fail spectacularly.
It is also not unknown for suspects to polyshop ( the ramseys, sean adkins) they go from poly to poly laying down the rules and restriction on what can and cannot be asked and then gagging the polygrapher so they cannot reveal anything including what questions were asked and more importantly what they failed on.
As we saw with the ramseys, they claimed to have passed but we do not know what questions were asked or if they passed all or only some of the questions ( lying by ommission)
As we also saw with kate who said she would take a poly, and, when taken up on the offer, promptly set a whole bunch of demands and restrictions making it impossible for the test to be administered.
An innocent person would pass a poly ( assuming the polygrapher is well trained and asks the right questions)
A guilty person will likely fail a poly which in kate's case isn't going to help their case and will point the finger straight at them
Polys are fallible, the right question s need to be asked.
A paedohile accused of molestation could pass a poly if asked the question " Did you molest little Polly"
He replies no and passes.
He did molest Polly, however, in his personal dictionary, it wasn't molestation, he instead thought of it as tickling, cuddling, holding.
This is why statement analysis is so reliable, we use only the subjects own words to phrase the questions.
For example:
Did you touch Polly?
Yes.
How did you touch Polly?
I tickled her.
Where did you tickle Polly? ( the subject has introduced tickle into his statement so we can now use it in our questions)
How do you tickle Polly?
Subject describes/ demonstrates what his definition of ticking is.
Where did you tickle Polly?
On her chest
Was it over her clothes? and so on so you learn the subjects personal dictionary, what words and actions mean to him (often not the same as they mean to us plus they invariably minimise.)
If i were to ask you what the word BOY meant to you, you would all instantly have a different idea.
For one it could be a new born baby, another it could mean a toddler, another a teen, another, a young man, another one of a group or team, another it could mean a soldier (support our boys)
Each of us would have a definition based on our own personal dictionary.
This is the advantage of SA over a poly.
A polygrapher can ask set questions which allows the subject to be deceptive as what the polygrapher defines as a word may not be the same as the subject ( the polygrapher calls it molestation, the subject calls it tickling so he will pass because in his mind it isn't molestation)
There is nothing unequivocal about those 15 words.
It is not open to misinterpretation.
It cannot be misunderstood.
The meaning is clear.
She doesn't use a minimising word instead of kill
She tells us killed : caused the death of, deprived of life.
She doesn't tell us someone else killed.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have lost their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have harmed their daughter.
She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.
She doesn't even tell us they didn't conceal her corpse.
She doesn't allow for someone else to have disposed of her corpse.
She plainly and clearly tells us her father and mother killed Maddie and disposed of her corpse.
The brain knows the truth and seeks to tell it as lying is stressful.
What i don't know is, if kate and gerry have admitted the truth to their attorney in order for her to prepare for the case and not allow them to walk into a trap of self incrimination, or, if she suspects the truth but due to client confidentiality cannot go the the PJ and say yep they did it etc.
As we saw in a previous appearance she couldn't say Maddie was abducted as a fact, she could only say this was what the parents told her
What they can do is advise their client and tell them to sit down and say nothing to anyone, make them work to find the proof rather than giving it to them on a plate.
They do have options, as far as i understand, that they can withdraw from a case if they know their client did the crime as charged and if placed on the witness stand will testify they didn't and perjure themselves.
They cannot knowingly allow their client to lie through their teeth on the stand as they themselves risk sanctions up to and including being kicked off the bar.
Many defence attornies in America will have their client do a polygraph to see what is revealed (truth or deception) and based on what the results are allow their client to take an LE one or to tell their client do not take it as you will fail spectacularly.
It is also not unknown for suspects to polyshop ( the ramseys, sean adkins) they go from poly to poly laying down the rules and restriction on what can and cannot be asked and then gagging the polygrapher so they cannot reveal anything including what questions were asked and more importantly what they failed on.
As we saw with the ramseys, they claimed to have passed but we do not know what questions were asked or if they passed all or only some of the questions ( lying by ommission)
As we also saw with kate who said she would take a poly, and, when taken up on the offer, promptly set a whole bunch of demands and restrictions making it impossible for the test to be administered.
An innocent person would pass a poly ( assuming the polygrapher is well trained and asks the right questions)
A guilty person will likely fail a poly which in kate's case isn't going to help their case and will point the finger straight at them
Polys are fallible, the right question s need to be asked.
A paedohile accused of molestation could pass a poly if asked the question " Did you molest little Polly"
He replies no and passes.
He did molest Polly, however, in his personal dictionary, it wasn't molestation, he instead thought of it as tickling, cuddling, holding.
This is why statement analysis is so reliable, we use only the subjects own words to phrase the questions.
For example:
Did you touch Polly?
Yes.
How did you touch Polly?
I tickled her.
Where did you tickle Polly? ( the subject has introduced tickle into his statement so we can now use it in our questions)
How do you tickle Polly?
Subject describes/ demonstrates what his definition of ticking is.
Where did you tickle Polly?
On her chest
Was it over her clothes? and so on so you learn the subjects personal dictionary, what words and actions mean to him (often not the same as they mean to us plus they invariably minimise.)
If i were to ask you what the word BOY meant to you, you would all instantly have a different idea.
For one it could be a new born baby, another it could mean a toddler, another a teen, another, a young man, another one of a group or team, another it could mean a soldier (support our boys)
Each of us would have a definition based on our own personal dictionary.
This is the advantage of SA over a poly.
A polygrapher can ask set questions which allows the subject to be deceptive as what the polygrapher defines as a word may not be the same as the subject ( the polygrapher calls it molestation, the subject calls it tickling so he will pass because in his mind it isn't molestation)
____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
Hobs- Researcher/Analyst
- Posts : 1084
Activity : 1825
Likes received : 713
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 60
Location : uk -
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Guest 03.08.14 17:42
Hobbs,
You can't take half a sentence and pretend it's a full sentence.
Context is everything.
You can't take half a sentence and pretend it's a full sentence.
Context is everything.
Guest- Guest
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Hobs 03.08.14 17:46
That it is, however she still embedded it in her statement.BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,
You can't take half a sentence and pretend it's a full sentence.
Context is everything.
I wonder if the mccanns will be suing her for making such a statement and thus hindering the search for their daughter.
They are siung Dr. Amaral for saying the same thing except he allowed for it to be an accidental death and they panicked and covered it up.
Isabel duerte doesn't even allow for it to be accidental.
____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
Hobs- Researcher/Analyst
- Posts : 1084
Activity : 1825
Likes received : 713
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 60
Location : uk -
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Guest 03.08.14 17:54
Hobbs,
She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.
The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).
She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.
The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).
Guest- Guest
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by aiyoyo 04.08.14 5:54
BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,
She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.
The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).
I agree with Hobs that the embedded line of words is nonetheless hers and hers alone.
No one else had said it in the public.
She was not quoting people's exact belief as if she heard it from somewhere or someone.
She was telling us her belief; a belief she believes that people believed same.
It was her belief that she projected onto other people, believing people believed that.
She was not mirroring people's belief; as the words the mccanns killed their daughter had never before been introduced into the public orbit.
She could have used load of other words to convey people's belief that Maddie died under the watch of her parents, but she chose to use the word kill.
She very probably suspects that to be the truth of the matter, and plays a very sly game to hint to the mcs she's defending the indefensible and should they lose don't blame her.
She probably regrets she took the case hence was trying to pre-empt the defeat.
Or there was a madness to her strategy.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Hongkong Phooey 04.08.14 8:21
aiyoyo wrote:BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,
She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.
The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).
I agree with Hobs that the embedded line of words is nonetheless hers and hers alone.
No one else had said it in the public.
She was not quoting people's exact belief as if she heard it from somewhere or someone.
She was telling us her belief; a belief she believes that people believed same.
It was her belief that she projected onto other people, believing people believed that.
She was not mirroring people's belief; as the words the mccanns killed their daughter had never before been introduced into the public orbit.
She could have used load of other words to convey people's belief that Maddie died under the watch of her parents, but she chose to use the word kill.
She very probably suspects that to be the truth of the matter, and plays a very sly game to hint to the mcs she's defending the indefensible and should they lose don't blame her.
She probably regrets she took the case hence was trying to pre-empt the defeat.
Or there was a madness to her strategy.
The article is over two years old and I think there's a big deal being made about nothing, she is generalising that Amaral has a lot of support and she feels alone in believing the McCanns story. This part is pretty clear im my view:-
“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
Because she feels alone then it is fairly obvious this is because everyone ELSE thinks along the lines of Amaral (even though killing is never mentioned this could possibly be a translation 'bug').
Hongkong Phooey- Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by kimHager 04.08.14 9:15
If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that
____________________
Kim
kimHager- Posts : 465
Activity : 483
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-01-29
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by kimHager 04.08.14 9:18
And I'm not in any way defending the mccanns they are guilty in my eyes. I am just stating for the right to attorney client privilege I wouldn't want someone who is defending me to go talking with anyone else about it
____________________
Kim
kimHager- Posts : 465
Activity : 483
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-01-29
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Hongkong Phooey 04.08.14 9:32
I agree, the whole statement is a bit odd. Makes you wonder just how much of the case she is willing to discuss with friends, I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was in that position.kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that
Hongkong Phooey- Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Guest 04.08.14 10:29
I'm with Hobs on this.
First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.
She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.
First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.
She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.
Guest- Guest
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Claire25 04.08.14 10:35
Exactly. Completely contrived for the benefit of the libel trial IMO. Why would she want to go round chatting about it out of work, you'd think she'd be sick of it.Hongkong Phooey wrote:I agree, the whole statement is a bit odd. Makes you wonder just how much of the case she is willing to discuss with friends, I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was in that position.kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that
Claire25- Posts : 134
Activity : 223
Likes received : 79
Join date : 2014-05-24
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Justformaddie 04.08.14 10:46
Probably pissed off her friends are more switched on than her. Iirc, that interview was more of a pity me, trying to help a family that her friends believe are guilty IMO
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Guest 04.08.14 11:14
Poe wrote:I'm with Hobs on this.
First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.
She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.
Three sentences quoted in a BBC item about the case and you know what she is not saying?
Perhaps you have the full context of this snippet?
Guest- Guest
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by tasprin 04.08.14 11:49
Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):
Imagine Isabel Martorell or Adam Tudor making this statement:
“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
or
“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Alan Rusbridger. Everyone believes that I am defending an oil company that have killed and injured many people by disposing of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast.”
Imagine Isabel Martorell or Adam Tudor making this statement:
“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
or
“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Alan Rusbridger. Everyone believes that I am defending an oil company that have killed and injured many people by disposing of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast.”
tasprin- Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by flaxyard 04.08.14 12:06
Petermac,
Add to your list -
Jeremy Paxman - very probably suspects...
Add to your list -
Jeremy Paxman - very probably suspects...
flaxyard- Posts : 37
Activity : 37
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-02-24
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by aiyoyo 04.08.14 13:31
kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that
In other words, her "everyone" refers to her friends or fellow colleagues in the field, not exactly joe public is it?
That begs the question did all her friends believe the father and mother killed Madeleine?
Is it a translation bug as one poster posited?
For one thing ID speaks English (I think), for another thing if she was misquoted she would have taken up the issue with the newspapers concerned.
This is was said when she was featured in a TV programme (I stand corrected if wrong) on a documentary that included interview with Amaral.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by aiyoyo 04.08.14 13:36
tasprin wrote:Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):
It was a contrived self-pity statement alright, but not with Mcs consent I should think.
I can't imagine her having to seek Mcs approval to make such a statement.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by tasprin 04.08.14 14:13
aiyoyo wrote:tasprin wrote:Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):
It was a contrived self-pity statement alright, but not with Mcs consent I should think.
I can't imagine her having to seek Mcs approval to make such a statement.
What I meant to say was; I think it was agreed with the McCanns that Duarte would make a statement outside court - with the aim of discrediting Amaral and gaining sympathy - the gist being; his book of lies has "destroyed" my clients to such an extent that even my friends isolated me because I am defending them, but it all went horribly wrong.
tasprin- Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by missmar1 04.08.14 14:16
BlueBag wrote:Poe wrote:I'm with Hobs on this.
First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.
She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.
Three sentences quoted in a BBC item about the case and you know what she is not saying?
Perhaps you have the full context of this snippet?
ID " Everyone believes Goncalo Amaral " How does she know, KNOW what everyone believes ? Imo, ID is making a sweeping statement about a situation she cannot possibly back -up with proof of her claims.
Much like the lawyer from CR who claimed in court that Madeleine Mccann had been abducted - under questioning, she had to later admit she had no factual evidence to back up her claim - just the word of the Mccann's who had told her this information. I believe what I have just written to be true - I am sure there is a poster who will hopefully correct me if I have got my facts wrong here.
missmar1- Posts : 253
Activity : 253
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by missmar1 04.08.14 14:36
Just thinking again about what took place with the CR lawyer in the court regarding her claim of abduction - imo, surely, if that was made public knowledge, there would be an outcry and questions as to why this case has had so much time and money spent on it when it appears there is no factual evidence that the Mccann's daughter was ever abducted in the first place ? All my opinion only.
missmar1- Posts : 253
Activity : 253
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Liz Eagles 04.08.14 15:00
I'm with tasprin's post.
To me it's tactical hot air to prove that Goncalo's book/documentary has had great influence, so influential in fact that even ID herself feels marginalized and is poppycock. Lawyers across the world don't come out with this stuff when they defend those involved in heinous crimes, never mind a damages lawsuit.
To make such a statement whilst there is an unfinished trial indicates hyperbole.
Just my opinion.
To me it's tactical hot air to prove that Goncalo's book/documentary has had great influence, so influential in fact that even ID herself feels marginalized and is poppycock. Lawyers across the world don't come out with this stuff when they defend those involved in heinous crimes, never mind a damages lawsuit.
To make such a statement whilst there is an unfinished trial indicates hyperbole.
Just my opinion.
Liz Eagles- Posts : 10953
Activity : 13360
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by kimHager 04.08.14 15:03
I think she knows or at least has an idea of her clients guilt, however the funding assures she will defend them. After all, it's only libel she is defending.... Not a murder trial... She may have a turn about if and when it comes to that... Is there a lawyer on the planet who would want that job?
My opinion
My opinion
____________________
Kim
kimHager- Posts : 465
Activity : 483
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-01-29
Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”
by Liz Eagles 04.08.14 15:06
ID isn't defending, she's prosecuting.kimHager wrote:I think she knows or at least has an idea of her clients guilt, however the funding assures she will defend them. After all, it's only libel she is defending.... Not a murder trial... She may have a turn about if and when it comes to that... Is there a lawyer on the planet who would want that job?
My opinion
Liz Eagles- Posts : 10953
Activity : 13360
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
