McCanns 'no show

ultimaThule wrote:I wish I could share your optimism, wftt, but today's proceedings are for the hearing of closing arguments and there is no legal requirement for the McCanns to be present.   Fwiw, when the judge's decision is handed down I would expect the loser(s) to announce that they will appeal the verdict.  

Doug D wrote:Anne Guedes posted 'same judge'.

• message from Astro:
  "Ended. Jan 21st for reading of proven facts. Not verdict yet. Will update later" 
     
  
  

woodforthetrees wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:I wish I could share your optimism, wftt, but today's proceedings are for the hearing of closing arguments and there is no legal requirement for the McCanns to be present.   Fwiw, when the judge's decision is handed down I would expect the loser(s) to announce that they will appeal the verdict.  

Yes, i too fully expect an appeal, to keep Amarals assets frozen, sell more papers and put more spin out there and ultimately keep the charade going! £££££££

aquila wrote:Is Dr Amaral present in court?

"Same judge"

All in all it went very well, in my opinion. Some excellent points were made by the defence lawyers after Dr Ricardo spoke for almost two hours.

But first, a little detail that escaped me until today: Isabel Duarte is the lawyer for the McCann couple while Dr Ricardo is the lawyer for the children. 

What does this mean? It means that we were going to be subject to allegations by Isabel for 1.5 hours and allegations by Ricardo for another 1.5 hours. 

Isabel wasn't able to attend today's session, which means we only had to go through one half speeches. Still, Ricardo had to cut his allegations short by what I estimate was one-third as he ran out of time and the judge had to cut him short.

We got a different court room today, not the usual one. This one was less freezing... And on the wall, just above the judge, this quote: "A injustiça feita a um é ameaça para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.[/size]
 
The next session takes place on the 21st of January 2015.
 
It will serve the purpose of the judge reading out what has been established as "matéria de facto" by the court. So potentially we may sense from what she will see as proved, or not, where the verdict may be going. But it will be only speculation... although I foresee an interesting discussion afterwards.
 
Then we start counting 30 days that the McCanns have to produce the document from the High Court judge in London that will certify that they are allowed to represent Madeleine. We think that although they may have the document already, they will let this period run to the end to gain time. But of course they could produce the document before the 30 days run out.
 
Then all lawyers have 10 days to hand in their "alegações de direito" which are written allegations about specific aspects of the law, as for example if the book's existence is illegal or not. And this potentially brings us to early March. So potentially we may have a verdict in March... or later. 

If they don't produce the document that enables them to represent Madeleine, only the part of the case that relates to her is thrown out. Everything else goes on.

Doug D wrote:Anne & Astro reports/comments can be found on:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm

notlongnow wrote:Is this the slowest trial ever?

aiyoyo wrote:

notlongnow wrote:Is this the slowest trial ever?

Evidently so, even by Portugal snailpace standard.
The Plaintiff side is dragging it out, trying to postpone today's session with ID not showing up today and the Mcs complaint about the final allegations.  All signs they're anticipating a crashing defeat and trying to buy time to plan rescue strategy.

tiny wrote:From the MCF.


He added that the investigation deviated from any objectivity and that the British police, Martin Grime and Mark Harrison realised this and feared that the McCanns were going to be subject to an impulsive, unfounded making of arguidos.

He also recalled that Stuart Prior was "very worried" when he met with the PJ on the fourth of september, just days before the McCanns were made arguidos. And that he was worried because he knew it was wrong to accuse them of anything because there was no evidence and the DNA reports were being misread, for the PJ's convenience.


Whats all this about,i know the mccanns and call me stu were very friendly,but Martin Grime and Mark Harrison had concerns too?

By Numbers wrote:

tiny wrote:From the MCF.


He added that the investigation deviated from any objectivity and that the British police, Martin Grime and Mark Harrison realised this and feared that the McCanns were going to be subject to an impulsive, unfounded making of arguidos.

He also recalled that Stuart Prior was "very worried" when he met with the PJ on the fourth of september, just days before the McCanns were made arguidos. And that he was worried because he knew it was wrong to accuse them of anything because there was no evidence and the DNA reports were being misread, for the PJ's convenience.


Whats all this about,i know the mccanns and call me stu were very friendly,but Martin Grime and Mark Harrison had concerns too?

I suspect this is a lie. A factor that appears to have worked well is the suggestion that the Portuguese are persecuting the McCanns, and it seems to stop people in the UK asking as many questions. Mark Harrison and Martin Grime create doubts over whether this is a miscarriage of justice based on nationality, and both of their findings give credibility to the McCanns' involvement in their daughter's disappearance and likely death. 

Perhaps Gerry McCann can clear up what he discussed with Martin Grime's boss, when he went to visit him, as he appears to have forgotten to mention this meeting to anyone at all. It was probably just a chat about how worried Martin was that his unbelievably reliable dogs might play a part in the PJ's nefarious scheme to frame the fragrant parents.

Gaggzy wrote:


When was this 'meeting?'

Can you provide a link for this?

By Numbers wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:


When was this 'meeting?'

Can you provide a link for this?

I inferred from Martin's Statement that it was a face-to-face meeting, but, rereading it, it could equally have been something such as a telephone conversation. Either way, no mention ever seems to have been made of this by Gerry McCann (nor Clarence Mitchell):

"'At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case'

I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However, I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes."








In light of what the McCanns' lawyer said, it might also be worth drawing attention to this further comment, with the same statement:


"In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell."