Libel trial summing up - daily mail

endgame wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote: Or perhaps another way of looking at it, because the Portugese legal system recently went into a disorganised meltdown, they are keen to be seen as fair and addressing their shortcomings. If the overall conclusion is in Amarals favour, the McCanns will have less to come back with than if the Judges original decision was allowed to stand. Perhaps it was with some fore site of this possibility that the higher court capitulated to the Mc's. I may be very naive, but I have a glimmer of hope inside that this will fall to Amarals favour.

Yes I can see that you could view it  that way and I sincerely hope you're right. Unfortunately I have little faith in the Portuguese legal system and this would weaken it more. The purpose of the higher court is to decide on matters of law and not to anticipate outcomes, take into account extraneous information, personal views, political lobbying etc. On the other hand, I suppose I don't mind if they do this as long as Amaral wins out in the end.

Joss wrote: So in what way have the McC's been damaged by anything that they did not incur themselves? What about all the internet forums that the McC twins would have access to? Are they going to take them to Court as well for having an opinion regarding theories as to what really happened to Madeleine that goes against what the parents think should be allowed to be said? The McC's can't control everything that the general public wants to say about what they think happened, and to have their own conclusions ...

endgame wrote:Well yes but I think there has to be considerable concern that the trial judge has twice made perfectly reasonable decisions absolutely in the mainstream of the law and on both occasions a higher court has buckled to the McCanns. IMO does not bode well for the longer term outcome of the case.

nglfi wrote:This is slightly off topic but I'm not sure it's enough to warrant a new thread - I'm travelling on a Bedford to Brighton train service and there is a ' have you seen me ' Madeleine poster on A4 paper that's clearly been put up by a customer! Now who do we know in either Flitwick or Brighton (both on this line) who could have put it up?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Joss wrote: So in what way have the McC's been damaged by anything that they did not incur themselves? What about all the internet forums that the McC twins would have access to? Are they going to take them to Court as well for having an opinion regarding theories as to what really happened to Madeleine that goes against what the parents think should be allowed to be said? The McC's can't control everything that the general public wants to say about what they think happened, and to have their own conclusions ...

"the McCann's can't control.....what the general public think"

G McCann went so far as to ASK, publicly, in 2010, what the general public 'thought' by way of asking the general public about 'what OTHER explanation can explain...' (Madeleine's 'disappearance')



The 'golden oldies' are ALWAYS the 'BEST!'

GM: 'Where... where, you know... where is... where... where is... where is... where is the child? We're looking for that evidence. Where is the child? What OTHER explanation can explain how she's not here?'

10th February 2010.
-------------------------------------------------

Well, since you've, publicly, on record, ASKED me, and the general public, "what OTHER 'explanation' can explain how she (Madeleine) is not here" Ge££y.

My 'other' explanation agrees with GA's 'other' explanation.

Take me to court?

Oh, you can't, can you?

YOU, Mr McCann, asked me, and the general public, anyone, what OTHER 'explanation' i/they could have, to 'explain' how Madeleine's 'not here'.

And i've told you mine.

Cya in court?

I don't think so!

aiyoyo wrote:

endgame wrote:Well yes but I think there has to be considerable concern that the trial judge has twice made perfectly reasonable decisions absolutely in the mainstream of the law and on both occasions a higher court has buckled to the McCanns. IMO does not bode well for the longer term outcome of the case.

Not bode well for which side though IYV?

I think it looks more positive for Dr. Amaral.  
I'm not sure I agree with posters who believed the Mcs will appeal. Throwing more money (that is running scarce) on an uncertain chance possibly with very little probability of having it turned aroud for them isn't good such good a option  unless they prefer to go through the motion for the sake of it because they can.

The verdict is in March. I feel their appeal decision will depend on the developments out of SY.  Though it is said the libel case is independent of criminal investigation the seen synchronisation of timing of events seem to suggest something was co-ordinated behind the scene between Investigators and Judiciary.  Just a guts instinct.

One coincidence, two coincidence maybe, more than that.....hmmm....questionable ?


Will be interesting to see what pans out of SY before March or timed for March.

endgame wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

endgame wrote:Well yes but I think there has to be considerable concern that the trial judge has twice made perfectly reasonable decisions absolutely in the mainstream of the law and on both occasions a higher court has buckled to the McCanns. IMO does not bode well for the longer term outcome of the case.

Not bode well for which side though IYV?

I think it looks more positive for Dr. Amaral.  
I'm not sure I agree with posters who believed the Mcs will appeal. Throwing more money (that is running scarce) on an uncertain chance possibly with very little probability of having it turned aroud for them isn't good such good a option  unless they prefer to go through the motion for the sake of it because they can.

The verdict is in March. I feel their appeal decision will depend on the developments out of SY.  Though it is said the libel case is independent of criminal investigation the seen synchronisation of timing of events seem to suggest something was co-ordinated behind the scene between Investigators and Judiciary.  Just a guts instinct.

One coincidence, two coincidence maybe, more than that.....hmmm....questionable ?


Will be interesting to see what pans out of SY before March or timed for March.

I meant doesn't bode well for Dr Amaral. I think most reasonable observers are simply seeking a fair and objective application of the law. On that basis and sticking strictly to the letter of what the Mcs are actually seeking to claim and prove, this appears to be a complete no contest. No definitive evidence has been presented and their closing statements have drifted off into all kinds of irrelevance. If this had been an English court of law, I think Amaral's lawyers [as with the Shrien Dewani case] would have pleaded by now that there was no case to answer. Instead an appeal court decides to give a helping hand to the McCanns.

I don't necessarily trust judges to make good decisions. As we have seen with Oscar Pistorius, judge based [as well as jury based] trials can produce strange results from esoteric interpretations of fact and law. As far as I understand it, the judge found that Pistorius knew someone was in the toilet but fired four shots at close range without intending to harm them. The judge also found Pistorius' evidence to be contradictory and unreliable in many instances but then found that she was minded to believe him.

When a judge makes an absolutely mainstream finding on a matter of procedure and is then overruled by a higher court you have to ask yourself where exactly do you have to look to find justice within the system? Reports submitted after the closure of evidence with no opportunity for cross examination- rightly disallowed then allowed. What message is the higher court sending?

All of course is conjecture until a final final decision is made - if ever.

Astro's report: From the Court House McCann V Amaral Wednesday 10 December 2014

"Same judge"
All in all it went very well, in my opinion. Some excellent points were made by the defence lawyers after Dr Ricardo Afonso 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 Afonso 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 Afonso 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 Afonso 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 injustica feita a um é ameaca para todos". Injustice done to one [person] is a threat to everyone.

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 "alegacões 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.

Dr Ricardo Afonso spent almost two hours talking about numbers, comparing the book with selected bits of the case files and trying to discredit Goncalo Amaral, the PJ and the dogs, while insisting that the British police didn't agree with the PJ's conclusions that led to the McCanns being made arguidos.
One example of his reasoning: the book starts with a mention of hunters hunting rabbits, which allegedly is out of season. So if the reference to the rabbit hunting season is wrong, everything else in the book is wrong, too.
It just went on and on and downwards fast.
He tried to dispute the dogs, the DNA tests, Mark Harrison's report which he said was only focused on the death possibility. The PJ, he alleged, was hell bent on accusing the McCanns and made the evidence fit the accusations
In short, he was discussing stuff that was never subject to discussion; large parts of his allegations were focused on discussing the investigation and the McCanns' arguido status, with several references to Alipio Ribeiro and his "precipitation" quote.
He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns.
The defendant, he said, just wanted to "sell blood, sweat and tears".
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.

This is roughly where he was interrupted by the judge.  He didn't spend two minutes addressing his own witnesses' testimonies.

Isabel Duarte (lawyer for the McCanns) was busy today, presumably another trial. She tried to get the session postponed but did not succeed. She missed her chance but will be allowed to present written allegations (alegações de direito, like all of the other lawyers) after the 30-day suspension runs out. The judge cannot interrupt allegations based on relevance, it's the lawyer's problem - and choice.

Goncalo Amaral's lawyer, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, stressed that this court case was nothing but an exercise to try to rid the couple from guilt. Guilt of being neglectful on the night of the disappearance, and then guilt of not having cooperated with the investigation.
The lack of cooperation from the couple and their friends led to the shelving of the case, a shelving that they never opposed, as they could have done.
He added that it would be very strange if they didn't feel depressed, anxious, sad; if they didn't feel a lack of appetite and sleep deprivation. But where is the causal link to the book? It was not proved. Their anxiety could be due to any other cause, like for example the guilt that they must feel about their lack of surveillance of their children and their behaviour during the investigation.
In summary: vague allegations from the couple and no evidence of any effect being caused by the book.

Fatima Esteves, lawyer for Guerra e Paz, made the more emotional allegations today. She stressed a few relevant (side?) points:
the almost absence of journalists in the room today, in contrast with full audiences whenever the couple attended the trial, proving that the McCanns are the motor behind the media movements and that they define the media agenda
the parents should have been made arguidos since the start, as is customary in cases of missing minors
the accusation's witnesses made vague depositions, and two of them even added reports afterwards, without being subject to questions from the defence (she was referring to reports that were handed in by Pike and Trickey long after their witness statements; these reports were correctly refused by the judge because this is highly irregular; the accusation appealed to a higher court which overturned the judge's decision and allowed both reports to be included in the case; the judge is free to value said reports or not, of course, but we also need to keep in mind that this case is certainly going to be appealed so the reports may be valued differently later on - or not)
the alleged damages were not proved to result from the book
SY appears, coincidentally, whenever there is a trial session in Lisbon
the McCanns sued Goncalo Amaral to protect the twins from a book which they cannot read (because it is in Portuguese) but failed to sue the websites that published the English translation, which the twins can read
the McCanns never requested the case to be reopened in Portugal
copies of the fund's accounts were requested by the defence but refused by the couple

Fatima Esteves became quite emotional sometimes, using words like unbelievable, incredible, unimaginable, etc. but she made rational points, too, in my opinion.

Miguel Coroadinha, representing TVI, started his allegations with a copy of today's Correio da Manha and an article about the Faro questioning sessions, using it to make the following points:
the visits by SY deviate attention from the trial, repeatedly and conveniently
the case has already been subject to studies about its exceptional media exposure
the McCanns have pushed the case into the media spotlight and do everything they can to keep it there
the media attention has never diminished and the book had no impact on media attention or on the investigation
witnesses for the McCanns stated that media attention increased with the book's publication

TVI did not broadcast the McCanns' documentary because the couple did not want that (the channel had already negotiated the broadcast when the couple backtracked)
concerning the alleged damages, it is impossible to prove a causal link to the book
this court is not the place to discuss the investigation's mistakes (like Ricardo Afonso did), but if one major mistake can be pointed out it's the mistake of not making the McCanns arguidos on the very next day after the disappearance, and if that had been done, we might not be here [in this court room] today
the witnesses that were brought by the couple were too emotionally involved and too close to the couple to be credible
the two "expert" reports were used for their authors to evade any questioning about said reports
the couple is trying to rewrite history, making everyone believe the only theory is their own, but the book is already part of the case history

Henrique Costa Pinto, lawyer for VCI Filmes, was the last one addressing the court.

He stressed that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine ended the way it ended (archived in July 2008) because of the lack of cooperation from the parents and their friends. The parents then tried to make it look like they had been acquitted, which they were not. The archiving dispatch mentions the death theory as the most likely.
Concerning the alleged damages, he stated that no evidence had been produced by the accusation.
And he closed by concluding that the McCanns sued over the book merely because they were enraged and irritated by Gonçalo Amaral's thesis.

endgame wrote:I meant doesn't bode well for Dr Amaral. I think most reasonable observers are simply seeking a fair and objective application of the law. On that basis and sticking strictly to the letter of what the Mcs are actually seeking to claim and prove, this appears to be a complete no contest. No definitive evidence has been presented and their closing statements have drifted off into all kinds of irrelevance. If this had been an English court of law, I think Amaral's lawyers [as with the Shrien Dewani case] would have pleaded by now that there was no case to answer. Instead an appeal court decides to give a helping hand to the McCanns.

plebgate wrote:A big thanks for the above report posted here by PeterM.
None of us would be any the wiser if we had to rely on MSM.    Very sad, very sad, IMO.
A big thanks again for the report from yesterday's proceedings.

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. 

This is roughly where he was interrupted by the judge.  He didn't spend two minutes addressing his own witnesses' testimonies.

aiyoyo wrote:

endgame wrote:Well yes but I think there has to be considerable concern that the trial judge has twice made perfectly reasonable decisions absolutely in the mainstream of the law and on both occasions a higher court has buckled to the McCanns. IMO does not bode well for the longer term outcome of the case.

Not bode well for which side though IYV?

I think it looks more positive for Dr. Amaral.  
I'm not sure I agree with posters who believed the Mcs will appeal. Throwing more money (that is running scarce) on an uncertain chance possibly with very little probability of having it turned aroud for them isn't good such good a option  unless they prefer to go through the motion for the sake of it because they can.

The verdict is in March. I feel their appeal decision will depend on the developments out of SY.  Though it is said the libel case is independent of criminal investigation the seen synchronisation of timing of events seem to suggest something was co-ordinated behind the scene between Investigators and Judiciary.  Just a guts instinct.

One coincidence, two coincidence maybe, more than that.....hmmm....questionable ?


Will be interesting to see what pans out of SY before March or timed for March.

Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.

BlueBag wrote:

Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.

I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Realist wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.

I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.