SUNDAY EXPRESS FRONT PAGE 1/9/13 - Fresh agony for Kate and Gerry - Libel trial in Lisbon

Hicks wrote:
I really hope that this trial will go ahead, also hope that Mr A has few tricks  up his sleeve.

Well he does have KM's two booooooks to quote from!

Didn't he once say 'that information in her book(s) COULD constitute 'new evidence'?

aquila wrote:

Hicks wrote:

aquila wrote:I happen to think that this libel trial will not go ahead. I happen to think there will be some sort of last minute issue that will result in another adjournment. I really hope I'm wrong.

I really hope that this trial will go ahead, also hope that Mr A has few tricks  up his sleeve.

It's a libel trial. It was brought about by Team McCann. They are in the driving seat. As I understand things the McCanns have nothing to prove, they have highly paid lawyers (goodness knows who is covering those fees). It is for Snr Amaral to prove. The McCanns don't even need to attend. It's disgraceful imo but it's the way of libel trials and the subsequent highly paid lawyers (my Dad's bigger than your Dad) deal with these things.

The fact that Scotland Yard is now 'involved' in an investigation is imo a real opportunity to defer the proceedings.

The McCanns don't need this trial and don't need the money imo. What they and their woefully, fragmented team of people around them need is to show they are stoic winners.

When a person claims damages, those damages must be itemised and proved, I can't therefore agree with you that the mccanns have nothing to prove.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

GRACEFUL1 wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Should there be a link, Graceful1?
 
I can't find anything on the Express website which certainly makes a change with a McCann story.

Sorry NFWTD can't upload it - it's on sky news (papers)

Here now:

Madeleine: Fresh agony for Kate and Gerry McCann
KATE and Gerry McCann face more agony next week when their libel action against a former Portuguese police chief comes to court in Lisbon

The couple are seeking £1million in damages from Goncalo Amaral over allegations he made about the fate of their daughter Madeleine.
The hearing could not come at a worse time, however, as Scotland Yard detectives begin work in the Algarve to try to solve the six-year-old ­mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance. The Sunday Express understands officers have advised the couple not to attend the civil hearing.
They believe Kate and Gerry’s presence would provoke a media circus and could seriously damage their sensitive work on Portuguese soil.
However, Mr Amaral is expected to attend and give interviews on the steps of the court to support his view that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
He will say that under freedom of the press he has the right to air his views, especially as he was in a senior coordinating role early in the investigation.
A family friend said: “He has spent months working on his case and is very confident he will win.”

The couple are seeking £1million in damages from Goncalo Amaral over allegations he made about the fate of their daughter Madeleine

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns’ lawyer in Lisbon, said: “Kate and Gerry do not have to give evidence so they do not need to be here. I am confident of winning.” She is seeking damages for Kate, Gerry and their twins Sean and Amelie, plus further damages for the harm caused to the search for Madeleine.
It is expected some of the McCanns’ family will give evidence at the trial to explain the impact Mr Amaral’s allegations had on them and on the global hunt for the missing child.
A source said: “Because of the sensitivity of the situation, police don’t want the McCanns anywhere near the country because they fear it could turn into a media circus. They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best. It will be bad enough having all the old allegations dragged up again and repeated. No doubt Mr Amaral will want to say his bit outside the court and it will all flare up again. It will not be helpful for the Yard.”
Heart specialist Gerry and former GP Kate, both 45, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have vowed never to give up the search for Madeleine, who would now be 10.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “The court process in Portugal is in the hands of Kate and Gerry’s lawyers and is purely a matter for them to proceed with.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425994/Madeleine-Fresh-agony-for-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann

Just going to read it.

 
worth noting :
1. GA is referred to simply as who he is and was ...no " booted off the case," "disgraced former police chief" or any of the other stuff.
2. Attention drawn to the contrast between his presence and willingness to publicly comment and McCann absence. Neither needs to be there, however one is going to face the court and media.
3. The source for the info re SY advice might be reliable, but the reasons for the request for non-attendance by the McCanns are not necessarily those stated in the article.
4. Many people are not aware of GA's position on the case, but will be now.
5. Clearly stated that SY investigation has moved to Portugal and should not be harmed. We all heard AR say there is a possibility M is alive. How can the search be harmed if one of the world's most renowned forces are over there working on that basis? After 6 years they still believe there is a chance that she can be found alive? Despite GA's theory of what happened?
6." Sensitive work on Portuguese soil." Interesting phrase.
7. As is  " would now be 10".

 A pity the Express made no ref to the former libel cases and the overturning of the book ban.

GRACEFUL1 wrote:Madeleine Fresh agony for McCann

Must be their best front page ever, Diana and the McCanns!
There would have been high fives in the office for that

Poor old Diana has been very much playing second fiddle to the McCanns for the last six years!

Perhaps the saintly pair won't object to their star being temporarily eclipsed as it's the anniversary this weekend of Diana's death.

Cristobell wrote:

aquila wrote:

Hicks wrote:

aquila wrote:I happen to think that this libel trial will not go ahead. I happen to think there will be some sort of last minute issue that will result in another adjournment. I really hope I'm wrong.

I really hope that this trial will go ahead, also hope that Mr A has few tricks  up his sleeve.

It's a libel trial. It was brought about by Team McCann. They are in the driving seat. As I understand things the McCanns have nothing to prove, they have highly paid lawyers (goodness knows who is covering those fees). It is for Snr Amaral to prove. The McCanns don't even need to attend. It's disgraceful imo but it's the way of libel trials and the subsequent highly paid lawyers (my Dad's bigger than your Dad) deal with these things.

The fact that Scotland Yard is now 'involved' in an investigation is imo a real opportunity to defer the proceedings.

The McCanns don't need this trial and don't need the money imo. What they and their woefully, fragmented team of people around them need is to show they are stoic winners.

When a person claims damages, those damages must be itemised and proved, I can't therefore agree with you that the mccanns have nothing to prove.

I think there is somewhere on this forum a link to the itemised damages claimed. I think it's all bonkers and I wouldn't give a nod in the desert to the McCanns if I were dying of thirst.

How to end the case in one day and have their claims tossed into the trash can


These are the questions:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45.  When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46.  When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?


A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

It's a tad hypocritical alleging and then suing the ex led detective claiming his statements and bi=ook are hindering the search when kate herself refused to answer 48 questions and then admitting by failing to answer she herself was hindering the search.

Will we see kate being sued by gerry for hindering the search for Maddie?

Don't hold your breath.

Pat brown is also talking about Maddie on facebook, i have been in cintact with her regarding some points, some she knew and some she didn't think of.

How did the McCanns get on when they 'sued' Tal & Qual?

Oh i KNOW!

McCanns drop libel case against Portuguese newspaper

Gerry and Kate McCann have dropped a libel case against the Portuguese newspaper which first linked them to the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

The couple were suing weekly the tabloid Tal & Qual over an article in August 2007 headlined "Police believe the parents killed Maddie".
The front page story caused a sensation around the world, as it was the first suggestion that detectives were treating the McCanns as suspects.
This week the couple, from Rothley, Leics, withdrew their defamation action after being advised that the newspaper had a strong defence under Portuguese law.
It could argue the story was published in good faith because senior police officers did at the time believe the McCanns may have been implicated in the case.
A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.
The source said: "The libel action against Tal & Qual has been dropped for a number of reasons. Firstly, the newspaper went bust some time ago.
"Secondly Tal & Qual could probably have mounted a defence, as they were reporting what a certain police officer believed at the time.
Lawyers representing the McCanns filed a writ against the newspaper, its editor Emidio Fernando, and reporter Catarina Vaz Guerreiro.
But two weeks later the couple, both doctors, were sensationally named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in the case.
Mr Fernando said: "I had total faith in the source and was certain the police were looking at the couple.
"It's not a victory, because I never saw this as a war. I was, as I am today, totally calm about what I wrote."
Gerry and Kate McCann´s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This is a matter for Kate and Gerry´s lawyers in consultation with Kate and Gerry, of course."

HOW MANY 'DONATIONS' FROM THE 'FUND' PAID FOR ALL THIS?
'FILING' then WITHDRAWING a libel case?
NOT CHEAP!

Isnt the trial about wether if GA has damaged the MC's rather than about who did what? I dont Think that it Will be aan issue whos Right ore wrong but about if the book damadged the search ore not. The content in that matter is irrelevant to discuss also is the opinion of both parts. The dangerous in This for the mc is the headlines in the papers starting all over again. It Will mean notning to the case only to their reputation. I dó hope that GAs Right to freedom of speech Will be respected and that he Will win the trial. The ressourcer spend ón This case is beyound Real!!!!! I dó Think GA knows what happened and i pray this is the chance for OPeration Grange to be forced to turn their eyes on T9

It is expected some of the McCanns’ family will give evidence at the trial to explain the impact Mr Amaral’s allegations had on them and on the global hunt for the missing child.
A source said: “Because of the sensitivity of the situation, police don’t want the McCanns anywhere near the country because they fear it could turn into a media circus. They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best. It will be bad enough having all the old allegations dragged up again and repeated. No doubt Mr Amaral will want to say his bit outside the court and it will all flare up again. It will not be helpful for the Yard.”

Can we believe anything Pinky say ?  
Did the advice really come from the Police?  
Were they planning to go in the first place?  Pinky certainly earns his keep, wheeled out as and when it suits them.
Imagine the prospect of facing the Press at the steps of Court ?  As if the other party rejection of their Out of Court settlement is not indicative of their fear of humiliation of defeat ?

ID's claim of  confident in winning (?) so much so that her clients are shunning away from Court, instead family members are going to be wheeled out as witnesses -   such desperate measure -  not a sign of someone with a leg to stand on.

I think the outcome of this is predictably in favour of the party not afraid to appear in Court.

ETA: It would turn into a media circus wouldn't it if the verdict is going to be opposite of what the Yard had proclaimed all along that "Madeleine may be alive" ?

Since the book was back ón the shelves i Think the court already have Said Once that the book is ok. If they say now it was damadging it should have been banned Way back....it wasnt.

Hobs wrote:How to end the case in one day and have their claims tossed into the trash can


These are the questions:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45.  When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46.  When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?


A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

It's a tad hypocritical alleging and then suing the ex led detective claiming his statements and bi=ook are hindering the search when kate herself refused to answer 48 questions and then admitting by failing to answer she herself was hindering the search.

Will we see kate being sued by gerry for hindering the search for Maddie?

Don't hold your breath.

Pat brown is also talking about Maddie on facebook, i have been in cintact with her regarding some points, some she knew and some she didn't think of.

Hi Hobs, She only needs to answer3 questions if put to her in different ways, PM me and I will list them. Also I cannot see gerry suing kate but I can see another outcome, again PM me for details

aniandr wrote:Since the book was back ón the shelves i Think the court already have Said Once that the book is ok. If they say now it was damadging it should have been banned Way back....it wasnt.

IMO, there is no way a Court will undo the decision of the three wise judges.

FROM 2012.................
 
A reminder from a year ago, when the trial was supposed to take place, they weren't intending on going back then, so all this about SY advising them when in reality it seems they weren't going anway  
 
 
 
McCanns will miss cop’s trial
 
 
 
THE parents of Madeleine McCann will avoid a showdown with a former police chief who wrongly claimed they lied about their daughter’s disappearance.
 
By Daily Star reporter/Published 9th September 2012
 
 
 

Kate and Gerry are not needed in Portugal for the trial
The McCanns’ lawyer Isabel Duarte

Kate and Gerry McCann are hoping to win a £1million libel payout from disgraced Goncalo Amaral, who they say has made their life hell.
 
But the McCanns, both 44, are staying away from this week’s trial in the Portuguese capital Lisbon.
 
Mr Amaral, 55, is attending the four-day hearing, which is scheduled to start on Thursday.
Kate and Gerry branded the ex-officer “poisonous” for claiming in a once-banned book that Maddie is dead and that they lied about her disappearance.
 
Their daughter vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal, five years ago, aged three.
The McCanns’ lawyer Isabel Duarte said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are not needed in Portugal for the trial.”
She said they were confident of victory, adding: “We reasonably expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought the family.”
Any payout will be spent entirely on the continuing global search for Maddie, the couple said
 
 
Mr Amaral led the bungled investigation but was sacked for criticising British police.
Kate wrote in her 2011 book Madeleine: “That man has caused us so much upset and anger.”
 
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/271373/McCanns-will-miss-cop-s-trial

PeterMac wrote:

It is expected some of the McCanns’ family will give evidence at the trial to explain the impact Mr Amaral’s allegations had on them and on the global hunt for the missing child.

The effect on whom ?  On the McCanns - in which case this would be hearsay, or the effect on the family members, in which case it would be irrelevant.
And I can't wait for the follow up question about the global hunt !

And which members of the family are going to be chosen to attend to give evidence. Let us pray it is Philomena

Imagine Philomena giving evidence on video link. Ye, GAWD!

candyfloss wrote:FROM 2012.................
 
A reminder from a year ago, when the trial was supposed to take place, they weren't intending on going back then, so all this about SY advising them when in reality it seems they weren't going anway  
 
 
 
McCanns will miss cop’s trial
 
 
 
THE parents of Madeleine McCann will avoid a showdown with a former police chief who wrongly claimed they lied about their daughter’s disappearance.
 
By Daily Star reporter/Published 9th September 2012
 
 
 

Kate and Gerry are not needed in Portugal for the trial
The McCanns’ lawyer Isabel Duarte

Kate and Gerry McCann are hoping to win a £1million libel payout from disgraced Goncalo Amaral, who they say has made their life hell.
 
But the McCanns, both 44, are staying away from this week’s trial in the Portuguese capital Lisbon.
 
Mr Amaral, 55, is attending the four-day hearing, which is scheduled to start on Thursday.
Kate and Gerry branded the ex-officer “poisonous” for claiming in a once-banned book that Maddie is dead and that they lied about her disappearance.
 
Their daughter vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal, five years ago, aged three.
The McCanns’ lawyer Isabel Duarte said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are not needed in Portugal for the trial.”
She said they were confident of victory, adding: “We reasonably expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought the family.”
Any payout will be spent entirely on the continuing global search for Maddie, the couple said
 
 
Mr Amaral led the bungled investigation but was sacked for criticising British police.
Kate wrote in her 2011 book Madeleine: “That man has caused us so much upset and anger.”
 
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/271373/McCanns-will-miss-cop-s-trial

Bear in the mind the Express states it was "a source" (not the Police) that had provided them with that info.

And, pinky being the source........just add the 2 and 2 together......

The mccanns are pre-empting........not a confident sign?

Penfold wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

It is expected some of the McCanns’ family will give evidence at the trial to explain the impact Mr Amaral’s allegations had on them and on the global hunt for the missing child.

The effect on whom ?  On the McCanns - in which case this would be hearsay, or the effect on the family members, in which case it would be irrelevant.
And I can't wait for the follow up question about the global hunt !

And which members of the family are going to be chosen to attend to give evidence. Let us pray it is Philomena

Oh yes PeterMac -if there is a God -please let it be Aunty Phil.

Yes, oh, yes!

Yeah auntie Phil would be fun, but I guess they are not THAT stupid. My bet: grammy Healy, who when she talks sounds like nails on a black board.

It's been reported *some* so maybe the whole lot from both side family ie Philemona Grandma Healy and John Kennedy et al will take turn expressing their AGONY....
I bet it would quite a sight if live reporting is allowed.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/14/kate-mccann-confident-libel-case

CONFIDENT.

Kate McCann said today she was confident of winning the libel action over claims that her daughter Madeleine is dead.

As she arrived at court in Lisbon she admitted that listening to claims that she faked Madeleine's abduction was difficult, but said nothing could be as bad as losing her child.
It is the third day of the trial in Portugal, where the McCanns are seeking permanently to ban a book written by former policeman Goncalo Amaral and £1.1m in compensation for defamation.
Entering the court, Mrs McCann said: "If I'm honest, our daughter's been taken and nothing's ever going to be as bad as that. It's still been difficult, it's been emotive, because I know what's in the case files, I know what the conclusions are. So it's difficult to hear something that's incorrect and inaccurate. At the bottom of all this is a little girl and I think it's important that we don't forget that."

Asked if she believed the McCanns would win their case against Amaral, she said: "I am confident, yes."

McCann and her husband, Gerry, have sat through two days of hearings in which Amaral, who initially led the investigation into their daughter's death, has called a series of senior Portuguese officials to support his allegation that Madeleine, who was three when she disappeared, died in her family's holiday flat in May 2007.

Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida told the court on Tuesday he believed the McCanns invented a kidnapping to cover up the death of their daughter. Yesterday former detective Francisco Moita Flores also dismissed the couple's claim that Madeleine was abducted, saying the McCanns' challenge to claims Madeleine was dead was "pathetic".

I think we will read reports about this libel case, as there is a lot going on with SY not only having moved from review to active investigation, when during earlier court events involving the alleged libel things re the Maddie case  were dormant. Not only that, but SY are on the point , if not there already, of being in Portugal.
 The phrase " sensitive work on Portuguese soil " which I highlighted from the Express, strikes me as real diplomacy-speak.

 I would not be surprised if a detective from SY was in the court incognito following events.  He or she would glean a heck of a lot of info from what would be heard there.

So McCanns NOT in court on police ADVICE?
Which police gave them that advice?
Are SY/CPS now 'acting' as lawyers advising 'clients'?
I'd have thought that anyone, legally, advising clients, would want their 'victims' to be IN court, to show the world how depressed and devastated they ARE.
And also give credence to their beliefs.

Anyway, wouldn't GA's lawyers faced by friends 'evidence' of the couples 'devastation' just object on the grounds of hearsay?

Hearsay defined.

Although the term itself may seem self-explanatory, there is more to the hearsay rule than is covered on Perry Mason. Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.
So, simply put, the hearsay rule says that SECONDHAND testimony is NOT admissible in court.

Any 'evidence' other than DIRECT from the plaintiff would be hearsay, wouldn't it?

Personally?
I'd like Trish Cameron,(when they last checked at half past nine, windows shut, shutters shut, all asleep, sleeping) Philomema McCann, (they had a clear line of sight of their kids) John McCann (Gerry and Kate would like to know about the man seen at half past nine carrying a child)  and Clarence Mitchell (too many innocent 'explanations' to list!) to be in the courtroom, cross examined by GA's lawyers.
But that's just me.

It is only a 'source' saying that the police don't want the McCs  around as it would turn into a media circus. [And we all know who the 'source' usually is, don't we?] It's probably escalated from a genuine comment that the press would be gathered outside,  into 'police advice' . Watch out for 'police stopped McCs testifying', or some such nonsense.

Penfold wrote:It is only a 'source' saying that the police don't want the McCs  around as it would turn into a media circus. [And we all know who the 'source' usually is, don't we?] It's probably escalated from a genuine comment that the press would be gathered outside,  into 'police advice' . Watch out for 'police stopped McCs testifying', or some such nonsense.

Again i ask, WHICH police don't want them there?

If some of the family are attending it will still be a media circus whether the McCanns are there or not.  According to the article I posted they had already said a year ago they wouldn't attend, which seems strange, because surely if you were confident of winning you would want to be there and give all the statements afterwards.   I certainly can't imagine police would give advice to anyone regarding a libel trial in a civil court.