Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Xavier wrote:Stella - I fear the whys and wherefores of Amarals conviction will be of little interest to the court. If anyone tries to dispute Hudsons comment that he is discredited, then it is only the verdict of the Portuguese Court that will be taken into account.

Now Aiyoyo -

Stella,

It's so obvious xavier is not interested in the facts surrounding amaral's perjury, neither is he here for the same purpose as us even though he purported to be. HIs tail been showing for a long time.

I am interested and aware of them. However - they are totally irrelevant in the context of Isabel Hudsons affidavit.

So how is using the word discredited in her affidavit relevant since that has nothing to do with mccanns case?
By the same token are you saying it's perfectly alright for people to say IH is dishonestly representing a pair of proven liars?

Just to add he's here to gloat over TB's mishap. Notice how he targets and circles in on TB?
He's pro-mccanns through and through and despite his pretense he does not fool me.....
but 'no worry' as we say in french 'sans souci' ....we know all about rat among our midst don't we and they are here out of fear. Fear that TB is very close to the knuckles and the mccanns in danger of being exposed for the liars they are.

You really do seem to be paranoid, Aiyoyo. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point to any post where I have "gloated" over TBs mishap. As it happens, in my opinion I think TB knew exactly what he was doing in provoking the McCanns to take action. I just think it is playing with fire, and I hope he knows what he is doing and has a plan B. I wish him well and would be happy to help, if he wants any.

Paranoid isnt the word - intuition is perhaps more correct. Wouldn't you say that if you spot a tail you smell a rat and that is intuition ?
Seriously, so you consider someone putting his head over the parapet for justice for Madeleine as playing with fire - you cant be any more patently obvious than that can you - in fact it appears you cant hide your glee if I may say so ?
Since you've been arguing this CR's action from the onset from a legal viewpoint pro the mccanns so far from my observation, how about you in 'your best efforts' ( if you can muster that) come up with a positive legal viewpoint for TB - seeing you claimed (undying ?) support for him - wish him well, happy to help...and this and that? Dont worry the hearing date is still a few months away, I have no doubt you have plenty time to mull over ID's affidavit and come up with answers/help for TB.


You may not agree with my posts, and that is your right. I do not agree with much of what you say. Especially when you try to "lay down the law". But that each of us has a right to say it. Maybe you disagree?

Lay down the law, what a joke? You couldnt recognise an evil dictator even if it is right in your face could you?
The only people laying down the law are those who want to gag people from free speech - they even sent their stalker here to monitor our free speech - wouldnt you say? As in IH and who knows who else?

My opinion of Pat Brown is rather different however - I do not think she has any credibility and anyone putting faith in her ability to crack the case or indeed to make a case against against the McCanns or Carter Ruck is doomed to disappointment.

As a matter of curiosity - do you have anything good to say about people seeking justice for Madeleine?
Or is this about her parents and anyone discrediting their version of the story you object to?

What is this lapse into french - vous parlez bien francais, peut etre? "sans souci" actually means "Carefree" but "no worries" is almost the same. A private joke with Stella perhaps?

Bien entendu, peut etre oui, et toi? tu parle quoi exactement comme langue maternelle?
A 'private joke' ? Ha? Care to explain that? You think discussion on forum is a private joke is it?


Interesting...just watch this space for the rat to reappear, or the next morphorsized (sp) rat.......I can smell them coming from miles off.


Perhaps you have been watching the wrong kind of movies. Ratatouille anyone?

Oh you would know wouldnt you?

Stella wrote:I am quite sure there must be an appeal going on to overturn Amaral's alleged perjury decision. Is that due before next February by any chance?

Xavier wrote:Stella - I fear the whys and wherefores of Amarals conviction will be of little interest to the court. If anyone tries to dispute Hudsons comment that he is discredited, then it is only the verdict of the Portuguese Court that will be taken into account.

Me wrote:

Xavier wrote:Stella - I fear the whys and wherefores of Amarals conviction will be of little interest to the court. If anyone tries to dispute Hudsons comment that he is discredited, then it is only the verdict of the Portuguese Court that will be taken into account.

Which is why the emphasis from TB's perspective should centre both on the investigation team as a whole and his successor's similar findings.

Plus of course the validation from the Portugese appeal judges on Amaral's theories which TB takes a lot of his material from.

Stella wrote:Xavie, I have a few questions for you.

I detect from your posts that all the judge will be interested in, is the signed undertaking and whether it has been breached or not?

Now let me ask you this. If an undertaking was written, how can I say this, in such a way that it breaches the law in some small way, something that can be contested during this future trial, do you think that the whole case against TB could be thrown out on a technicality before that date? Remember what happened to Paul Burrell?

Do you think that maybe CR always knew this, a kind of get-out-clause that they knew would be used, to prevent a full blown trial?

Do you know what was in the original undertaking?

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

Xavier wrote:Stella - I fear the whys and wherefores of Amarals conviction will be of little interest to the court. If anyone tries to dispute Hudsons comment that he is discredited, then it is only the verdict of the Portuguese Court that will be taken into account.

Which is why the emphasis from TB's perspective should centre both on the investigation team as a whole and his successor's similar findings.

Plus of course the validation from the Portugese appeal judges on Amaral's theories which TB takes a lot of his material from.

You need however to consider what this case is about.

It is not about whether or not GM and KM are innocent or guilty. They are not the ones on trial, and any attempt to turn this into some sort of trial of the McCanns will be seen as grandstanding.

It is about whether TB has breached the undertaking he gave to the high court. And in particular
On 27 August 2009, Carter-Ruck sent legal letters to myself and our
former Chairman Debbie Butler making the following demands:
1) the permanent suspension of our website
2) to cease selling and distributing ‘60 Reasons’
3) to cease distributing ‘10 Reasons’
4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really
happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any
posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what
really happened to Madeleine.
In particular 4 and 5.
This is what TB will need to provide a defence to.
From the courts point of view, and in law, the McCanns are innocent. Period. The conclusions reached by a police investigation, or written in a book, are irrelevant to this.
TB has continued to alledge that the McCanns know what really happened to Madeleine, and that they are guilty of a criminal offence.
CR are arguing that he has therefore breached the undertaking that he gave to the high court. This is a something that the court will take very seriously.
This is why emotional arguments about tavares statements, Amarals book and whether Hudson has been libelling Amaral by referring to him as discredited will not work.
TB will need to present a defence to CRs actual complaint.
Stella - I have just seen you post. I think it is mostly answered above. I hear what you say about drafting errors - I did see notes on the oroginal undertaking and it is to my mind unlikely that there are any technical grounds for overturning it.

Me wrote:TB has to defend this on the basis of either the undertakings being unfair against him or that there was a technicality in them that he can use to his advantage.

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:TB has to defend this on the basis of either the undertakings being unfair against him or that there was a technicality in them that he can use to his advantage.

"Unfair against him", precisely !!! if this has happened, it is the McCann's who will be footing the bill.

We have seen extracts of a letter from CR to TB, but how do we know that this was the final draft, the actual one signed by TB and he received a copy of?

As for those initial undertakings.

4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really
happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any
posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what
really happened to Madeleine.


As far as I know TB has only ever discussed theories, which everyone in this country is legally allowed to do. I cannot remember him ever claiming that the McCann's knew what happened.

Me wrote:

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:TB has to defend this on the basis of either the undertakings being unfair against him or that there was a technicality in them that he can use to his advantage.

"Unfair against him", precisely !!! if this has happened, it is the McCann's who will be footing the bill.

We have seen extracts of a letter from CR to TB, but how do we know that this was the final draft, the actual one signed by TB and he received a copy of?

As for those initial undertakings.

4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really
happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any
posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what
really happened to Madeleine.


As far as I know TB has only ever discussed theories, which everyone in this country is legally allowed to do. I cannot remember him ever claiming that the McCann's knew what happened.

I guess that the case will rest upon the definition of "alleging that the McCann's knew what really happend to Madeleine" in context against the PJ / Amaral's theories which were subsequently validated in a Portugese court and TB's interpretation and comment on those theories.

For example could TB claim that the posts CR object to are simply repitions of court validated theories from the offical investigation, and therefore do not constitute reckless, willful or baseless allegations in breach of his undertaking? Could he claim he's not making unfounded allegations, simply repeating what the investigation and Amaral have stated which has, in Amaral's case, been validated by a court in Portugal.

Me wrote:Just a further thought. Clearly it's upto CR to produce evidence of these alleged breaches. Have these been published by TB?

It would be interesting to see which posts / articles they are citing and why. Having just read the August 12th CR letter they appear to be clutching at straws with their evidence of alleged breaches they produced in that letter, where on one occasion they falsely attributed general comments made as a direct claim that TB stated the McCann's caused the death of Maddie.

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:TB has to defend this on the basis of either the undertakings being unfair against him or that there was a technicality in them that he can use to his advantage.

"Unfair against him", precisely !!! if this has happened, it is the McCann's who will be footing the bill.

We have seen extracts of a letter from CR to TB, but how do we know that this was the final draft, the actual one signed by TB and he received a copy of?

As for those initial undertakings.

4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really
happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any
posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what
really happened to Madeleine.


As far as I know TB has only ever discussed theories, which everyone in this country is legally allowed to do. I cannot remember him ever claiming that the McCann's knew what happened.

I guess that the case will rest upon the definition of "alleging that the McCann's knew what really happend to Madeleine" in context against the PJ / Amaral's theories which were subsequently validated in a Portugese court and TB's interpretation and comment on those theories.

For example could TB claim that the posts CR object to are simply repitions of court validated theories from the offical investigation, and therefore do not constitute reckless, willful or baseless allegations in breach of his undertaking? Could he claim he's not making unfounded allegations, simply repeating what the investigation and Amaral have stated which has, in Amaral's case, been validated by a court in Portugal.

I agree with your comment that TB might have been wise to apply to the court to have the undertaking set aside prior to resuming posting. However, this would have attracted the attention of CR and would be seen to breach the original agremeent. Which if my memory serves me correctly was that the McCanns, via CR, had issued defamation proceedings. Having taken advice from Kirwans, that he was unlikey to win in court and could have been financially devastating. He was offered a deal whereby the defamation action would be dropped provided that he signed an undertaking.

It is pretty clear that TB has breached the undertaking and this places him a weak position.

Arguing validation of Amarals thesis by a Portuguese court could work if the action were in Portugal. But not certain, as the judgement seemed to turn more on Amarals right of expression and the McCanns rights to privacy having been forfeit by their relationship with the press than on validation of Amarals thesis.

UK law is rather more plaintiff friendly, and given that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, and have been accused of committing a crime. The onus will be on TB to justify his breach of the undertaking he signed.

The case was built upon three main grounds:

The claim for freedom of expression under the Portuguese constitution; the second claim that the facts in the book were "mere reproductions” of the investigative data and the third, that those same facts were "even part of the Prosecutor’s report."

All three claims were accepted at the end of the judgement.
In the book, the Judges say, Amaral presents a multiplicity of facts from the investigation, all of which are in the DVD and which are evaluated in the Prosecutors' report. In this multiplicity of facts some are primary, some secondary: Amaral evaluates and weighs them accordingly, from the standpoint of someone with 26 years experience of police investigation.

Amaral, say the judges, describes in the book, in detail, a number of apparent facts and situations that from the outset of the investigation were not compatible with each other leading to contradictory conclusions.

They confirm that these reservations were not in opposition to the Prosecutors' report but were essentially the same as those given by the prosecutor himself – by immediately turning to and quoting from his report: "From the analysis of the depositions that were made, [runs the report] it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified at the location of events, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to agree and the lack of consistency in a suitable investigative form: the reconstruction. This could not be carried out, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, ..." [Blacksmith translation]

The judges then turn to the dogs, quoting not from the Truth of the Lie but, once again, from the Prosecutors' report. The findings of Eddie and Keela are given in some detail.

Having done so the judges add that the combination of the inconsistencies and the performance of the dogs was enough to constitute making them arguidos [there is no mention of "haste" JB]. As far as the dogs are concerned they state that forensic evidence, as we know, did not corroborate their findings; as far as the contradictions are concerned the Portuguese authorities, Justice ministry and PJ tried to perform a reconstruction but failed due to the lack of availability of the McCanns and their friends, leaving those contradictions still unresolved.

Here, once again, they quote not the Truth of the Lie but the Prosecutors' report, [you know, that document that clears the McCanns] in support of what Amaral claims:

"(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.

We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)".

Now, the killer blow and here we will quote the judges in full:

"What is certain [our italics JB] is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."

Note the phrase: "what is certain".

Killer blow number 2:

"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

And number 3:

We need, the judges say, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

Xavier wrote:Stella. They have repeatedly said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead. KMs comments in the book could be ascribed to her fears that Madeleine is dead, and it is unlikely in my view that such reference would realistically be of much help, and certainly it is most unlikey the court would take that view.

Xavier wrote:Fair enough Stella. Would need to look at the reference in the book to be able to make a more informed view, but in any event, whatever we say, it will be down to the Judge on the day.

It is also worth bearing in mind that any breach of the undertaking will be a problem for TB.

Xavier wrote:Fair enough Stella. Would need to look at the reference in the book to be able to make a more informed view, but in any event, whatever we say, it will be down to the Judge on the day.

Stella wrote:

Xavier wrote:Fair enough Stella. Would need to look at the reference in the book to be able to make a more informed view, but in any event, whatever we say, it will be down to the Judge on the day.

From the book:

"In spite of some of the terrible discoveries I was making as I learned more of the stories and statistics relating to missing and exploited children, it wasn’t all bad news. Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered. I was coming to realize that didn’t have to be the answer. Meeting Ernie Allen and the people at NCMEC played a big part in helping me along this road".