"Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

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

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.

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.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.”    

Petermac,

Add to your list -

Jeremy Paxman - very probably suspects...

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

ID isn't defending, she's prosecuting.

Duarte may just as well have said... 'having the McCanns as clients is a filthy job, but somebody's got to do it!'

pennylane wrote:Duarte may just as well have said... 'having the McCanns as clients is a filthy job, but somebody's got to do it!'

Yes, indeed. The whole premise of a libel suit is that a false allegation has been made against you which has damaged your reputation.

However, if, as the McCann's own lawyer is suggesting, "everyone" believes that the McCanns are guilty of a crime that is at least as bad as the one outlined in Detective Amaral's book (Amaral I do believe claims Madeleine died in an accident) then no wonder the McCann's own lawyer feels  "alone".

“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.”


I think this is fairly unambiguous. She does not have the support from the general public because the public opinion is not behind the McCann's version of what happened to Madeleine. Not just that - she also have friends who refuse to discuss the case with her because they believe in Detective Amaral's version of events. She appears to go even further when she says "everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse", as I thought that Amaral's theory was that Madeleine died in an accident, and the parents covered it up, rather than that she was killed by her parents.
I don't really see how the McCanns can win this libel case. (*)Because presumably not only do they have to prove that what Amaral has written is false. They also have to prove that it therefore damaged their good reputations. And they also have to prove that this caused them harm, distress and so on.

Given that it is a matter of fact that even before Amaral wrote his book there were doubts from some quarters about the validity of the McCann and their friends version of events (as I think came up in the libel case with the judge referring to web-sites and groups critical of the McCanns) then you could argue that the McCann's reputation was already not unblemished by the time the book was written. And if the McCann's version of events is not the whole truth, and is to many (as their lawyer suggests)  unbelievable,  then you could argue that they damaged their own reputations by giving an unbelievable version of events of what happened to Madeleine. 

And if what Amaral wrote is getting closer to the truth than the  version of events as alleged by the McCanns, then they are not being defamed. They are, in actual fact, being held to account for their lies. In which case you could argue that it is the McCanns who are defaming the reputation of Amaral as they have falsely stated that what he wrote is all lies. When he was 'only doing his job,' and his intention was only ever to discover the truth of what had happened to Madeleine. 

The McCanns and their friends would have made signed police statements that I presume swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So if Amaral is correct in alleging that they have not always told the truth (and the many inconsistencies in their statements makes this highly likely) then it the McCanns  themselves who have caused damage to their professional and personal reputations by not only lying about what happened to Madeleine but also lying under oath.

In which case it is Detective Amaral professional and personal reputation which is at stake here, rather than the McCanns. And it is he, rather than they,  who should be suing the McCanns and their friends!

Poor old Duarte - it's a tough job but someone has to do it. For the right $$$$$$ of course! 

It would seem  that nearly all the rats have left the ship. And possibly only one band member is attempting to play on against the encroaching sub-zero waters as the iceberg looms ever larger into view.

So perhaps what we are seeing is merely the rearranging of the chairs. 

(Apologies for hammy and over-the-top mixed metaphors but I seem to have had an attack of the giggles   ).

* Is this what Duarte is getting at? Maybe her friends are telling her to throw away the violin and jump ship before the whole thing sinks into the merky depths!


All IMO as always.

"ID isn't defending, she's prosecuting" - that makes it all the more 'preposterous', as Gerry might say. It would be bad enough defending them but at  least she could argue that she is protecting her clients' rights. What she has said is, imo, a public admission that she knows the case is complete BS. And her own friends have told her so.