LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Just like the Queen, she makes statements but no one is allowed to ask questions.

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Very strange, none of the latest posts are showing up on the main forum page.

Anyway, video here of Kate McCann speaking outside court today...........



http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-12/madeleine-mccann-family-libel-trial-against-portugal-police-chief/

Note, KM says to the journalists no questions at the end and turns away.

I've only just seen the video, but I have to say she looks horrendous.  Fllipn' heck the past 6 years of telling endless lies have really taken their toll on Kate.  Where is Gerry by the way, is he nuzzled up somewhere very cosy, or will we be honored by his presence with a fanfair tomorrow?

Sun have the story on the front page......

This is the latest from Blacksmith:


 The Interrupted Investigation

Battle is Joined
No surprises so far. As the Bureau said a while ago [Not like the Good Old Days, February 2012, McCann files] the list of witnesses for the McCanns indicates that Duarte is concentrating on putting forward an emotion-based, rather than fact-based, case. And proceedings today followed that forecast as if we’d written the script for them eighteen months ago.
Whether it will be successful I have no idea: waves of emotion, rather than truth, have carried the couple along so far, just like that other well-capitalised and successful manufactured product of Messrs Kennedy, Smethurst and others, double-glazing. Both products have been subject to similar reservations over the years – that they are plastic, see-through, heavily oversold to the proletariat and won’t last long but they also share the valuable quality that dirt, and particularly Grime, don’t stick to them at all.
Given that record an onion-based approach might well work, as it has done for numerous other celebrity clients of Carter-Ruck such as Robert Maxwell, the greatest thief in English history, who turned on the waterworks in the witness box with a facility that mere Liverpool families can never attain. And, of course, the judge in the Jeffrey Archer libel case,  sexually enthralled by the presence of Archer’s wife, used the right hand of masturb justice to great effect, with the result that the guilty Archer, and, we hope, the missus, left court without a stain on them.
While Lord Justice Leveson made no reference to Kate McCann’s smell, thank God, he seemed almost equally smitten, as far as one could tell from his little coos and grunts of appreciation at her presence a few feet away. Who can be sure that a Portuguese judge won’t feel the same way?
But…
The risk, of course, is that the defence won’t waste time trying to convince the court that the photos and endless celebrity interviews of the couple show a severe shortage of the dreadful suffering that the writ alleges Amaral caused them, but will concentrate on the evidence that other police officer accumulated and the reasonable inferences that could, and should, have been drawn by Amaral or any other co-ordinator.  I doubt if people like Mother Hubbard will be much use in refuting such points.
So where do they go if that happens?
Obviously the best route would be for the McCanns and their friends to speak frankly and openly about their own innocence and the nightmare of being falsely suspected. But that is the one thing that they will have nothing whatever to do with, behaviour which is exactly in line with their performance since 2007 – they won't go near a witness box under any circumstances.
That baffling refusal to be sincere under oath  means Duarte has to go for the next-best (but clearly inferior and chancy) tactic of calling various. If Rebelo and others tell the court that GA’s inferences were decisively refuted before summer 2008 and that he was confronted with the refutation then things will look up for the couple – until the defence team asks what evidence, as against lack of evidence, they presented to Amaral in refutation. Nevertheless their contributions could be critical.
Still, these are early days and we won’t gain knowledge of the balance of forces until the defence opens and, for the first time, see what Goncalo's strategy is. 
All to play for.
________________
Bosch & Breughel Corner
I was asked late today what I thought of the quality of the  "assessments" from  the FTSs (Full-Time-Supporters) on Twitter and elsewhere today, as well as the significance  of that senior officer and brilliant sleuth Dave Edgar's presence  in Lisbon. Apart from the fact that Edgar, in his coarse, ill-fitting clothes looked like he was searching for a broom to continue sweeping the pavements of that fine city, my reaction to both was identical- here:

http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
Anyway, video here of Kate McCann speaking outside court today..........
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-12/madeleine-mccann-family-libel-trial-against-portugal-police-chief/

Note, KM says to the journalists no questions at the end and turns away.

Learned performance, no hesitation, nicely styled repetitions "has been caused, and will continue to be caused"
No hesitation, repetition, or deviating from the subject on the card - hence no questions.
But also no smiles, no confidence about winning, no gratitude to the people who are putting their necks and reputations on the block to support her, Nothing.

I cannot wait for the lawyer tomorrow, bearing in mind the way the great and highly paid Mrs Mattorell had to back-track when asked just the ONE question.
So far I can see they are giving only "evidence" of the alleged effect the truth book had on them. Second hand, hearsay, and largely irrelevant.
(He said I was fat, and I am upset so it's libellous. NO it's true You are fat.)
One has to wonder if GA and his team are just letting them get on with it, and are then going to say, as did the Dowager Countess of Downton the other night, when confronted with the Irish lad who was refusing to wear full Morning dress to be Best man for the wedding . . .
"Have you finished ?" before putting him into the Morning suit !

And then it starts. Facts, findings, detailed descriptions of the failure of the parents and the rest of the Tapas7 to cooperate right from the start, the lies they told and continue to tell (Kevin, wake up ! - shutters, sedation, curtains, windows, window of opportunity) and most of all, things not so far in the public domain - and there are still things known to a few of us which are being carefull and clinically and forensically prepared for Grange . . . or for whoever is appointed after Grange to prove they did a poor job.

kitkat wrote:what if it turned out eventually that GA was too and his so-called 'evidence' tampered with.  How would you respond?

Three words:
Eddie. And. Keela.

Newintown wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Very strange, none of the latest posts are showing up on the main forum page.

Anyway, video here of Kate McCann speaking outside court today...........



http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-12/madeleine-mccann-family-libel-trial-against-portugal-police-chief/

Note, KM says to the journalists no questions at the end and turns away.

I've only just seen the video, but I have to say she looks horrendous.  Fllipn' heck the past 6 years of telling endless lies have really taken their toll on Kate.  Where is Gerry by the way, is he nuzzled up somewhere very cosy, or will we be honored by his presence with a fanfair tomorrow?

How on Earth could this man, this Fortunately-Absolutely-Not-A-Modern-Man, this rock her whole life hinges on, do this to this poor woman? 

Do what? 

Let her take the rap.

OK, he can charge in like the Light Brigade tomorrow, but it would look even more contrived then, than it already does now. 

How do we call men who send out women onto the streets to make money for them, by the way? 

What a charade! Let's all hope the Court sees right through it and acts accordingly.

http://news.sky.com/story/1140509/madeleine-mccann-kate-at-book-libel-hearing

For someone who wasn't going to say anything, she said quite a lot

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:According to the stats on my 'The Truth of the Lie' blog (goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/) 19,531 people from all around the world have googled Amaral's name today and read his book.  

In the face of some of those rather depressing UK tabloid covers, that's really reassuring to know 

I would think more of her speech if she did it from the witness box than stood in front of the cameras,but if she stood in the box she would not be able to turn away and say no questions.

Maddie case: Former inspector's trial starts with questioning of McCanns' witnesses
Maddie case: Former inspector's trial starts with questioning of McCanns' witnesses
12 September 2013 | Posted by astro Leave a Comment



Three witnesses that were indicated by the McCann couple were heard today at the beginning of the civil process trial, over defamation, of former Judiciary Police inspector Gonçalo Amaral, after a case was filed by the parents of the English child that disappeared in the Algarve, in 2007.

This information was given to Lusa agency by Isabel Duarte, Madeleine McCann's parents' lawyer, on the first day of the trial when judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro determined that there were no reasons for the audience to take place behind closed doors, as requested by Gonçalo Amaral, who attended the Civil Court of Lisbon as an arguido.

Earlier, the parties failed to reach an extrajudicial agreement within the civil case, in which Madeleine McCann's parents requested compensation in the amount of 1.2 million euro over the alleged defamation by the former PJ inspector (who investigated the child's disappearance). The trial started with the questioning of three witnesses - a Canadian and two Englishmen - who are "friends" of the McCann couple.

During this first session, the judge had to adapt the trial to the new rules of the Civil Process Code, a legislative reform that entered into force on the 1st of September.

The trial continues on Friday with the questioning of five more witnesses that were indicated by Madeleine's parents, three of them being relatives of the McCann couple.

In statements to Lusa, Isabel Duarte said that since the beginning, the McCann couple was open to reach an extrajudicial agreement with Gonçalo Amaral, but it was not possible to reach an agreement with the arguido.

Nonetheless, she stressed that the McCann couple's main goal was that the investigation into the child's disappearance was restarted, which, according to her, has already happened, without adding any further details or leads.

In a related process, the Civil Court of Lisbon decided, in January of 2010, to keep the prohibition of the sale of the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", authored by Gonçalo Amaral, and of the video with the same title, based on a documentary that was broadcast by TVI.

The ban of the book and the video, which presents Gonçalo Amaral's thesis on the involvement of Kate and Gerry McCann in the disappearance of their daughter by concealing the cadaver, had been provisionally ordered on the 9th of September of 2009.

On the 19th of October of 2010, the Appellate Court of Lisbon annulled the decision of the Civil Court, after which the McCann couple appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice. In a ruling dated March 18, 2011, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appellate Court's decision.

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the 3rd of May of 2007, in an apartment in a holiday resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was spending a vacation with her parents and her twin siblings.

At that time, Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Judiciary Police in Portimão.

Kate and Gerry McCann, who have always stated that the child was abducted, were made arguidos in September, 2007.


The investigation was archived due to a lack of evidence in July of 2008, although the Public Ministry admits reopening it if new data concerning the child's disappearance surfaces.


in: Região Sul, 12.09.2013

Thanks Graceful1 for posting the Joana Morais article.  I have merged with this thread to keep it all together and not have lots of separate threads on the same subject.

candyfloss wrote:Thanks Graceful1 for posting the Joana Morais article.  I have merged with this thread to keep it all together and not have lots of separate threads on the same subject.

Thank you Candyfloss

Thanks all for the articles  

Please does anyone know if today's witnesses were cross-examined? Thanks in advance.

ShuBob wrote:Thanks all for the articles  

Please does anyone know if today's witnesses were cross-examined? Thanks in advance.

We don't know ShuBob, no word about that at all anywhere.  Perhaps they just all say their piece, then Mr Amaral's witnesses say theirs, and the judge decides. 

plebgate wrote:I would think more of her speech if she did it from the witness box than stood in front of the cameras,but if she stood in the box she would not be able to turn away and say no questions.

Like.

I`m still not sure what has to be proved in this case. Do the McCanns have to prove that what was written by GA was untrue?  Or do they just have to prove that the book held up the search for Madeleine?

Woofer wrote:I`m still not sure what has to be proved in this case. Do the McCanns have to prove that what was written by GA was untrue?  Or do they just have to prove that the book held up the search for Madeleine?

I am not sure either.  But as usual they have the weight of the British press behind them so a victory will be front page news and numerous TV interviews.  A defeat will be the same with a slagging off of the Portuguese justice system and how they are to blame for not finding the little girl.

Whole thing makes me nauseous nowadays.

I'll post this here. I know this is related to British law, but it will go some way to explain what libel is or how it is interpreted:

British libel laws were already complicated enough before the internet came along. Their aim is to balance the right of free speech against protection for the reputation of an individual from unjustified attack.
In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work.
Juries are told that the measuring stick of a libel being committed is whether any of this would affect how a "reasonable man" views the complainant.
There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true, it could be fair comment - so long as the opinion is based on true facts, is genuinely held and not influenced by malice - or it could be protected by privilege (reporting of comments made in parliament, courts and other official arenas are, generally speaking, protected from libel actions).
Since the 1998 Reynolds claim against Times Newspapers, it has become accepted that material published in the public interest is a further defence in libel proceedings.
The problem for anyone preparing to publish information which may be defamatory, is that the laws are very much open to interpretation. Different juries will have different views on what exactly influences a right-thinking man.
What is certain is that the legal costs of defending a libel action will be considerable, often running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The loser almost always has to pay the costs of the winner, plus any damages awarded to the claimant.
In effect, fighting libel cases is an expensive game of chicken, which newspapers are often reluctant to enter into, even when they believe they have a strong case.
The emergence of the internet has further complicated the issue. Individuals now have a simple way of putting their writings online - with little or no review or vetting.
Over the past decade, forums and online chats have introduced a new genre of writing, that in effect provides a written record of raw, impulsive conversations where most participants have paid scant consideration to any legal implications.
Furthermore, internet postings can be read anywhere, bringing into question issues of jurisdiction. The internet has also been seen as a place where people can express themselves anonymously, although the rise of successful online child pornography and grooming prosecutions has raised awareness of the trail left by ISP addresses.
Finally, there have also been past doubts about who is the actual publisher of online information and what, if any, protection they should have from being sued. In print, the primary publisher is the newspaper and any libel action would normally be directed against the author or editor or both.
It is rare, though not unheard of, for the shop which sold the publication, known as the secondary publisher, also to have to pay out. The issue with online articles is whether the publisher is the person who runs the website, or the ISP which hosts it.

GM stated in his blog on 21 July 2008 that they had witnessed how their arguido status had had a detrimental effect on the search for Madeleine, now they blame GA. Of course we should remember that they want this money for their limited company, and if they don't "search" for Madeleine again what will happen to that money? Help make a few more mortgage payments perhaps or a nice family holiday, with plenty of tennis and jogging.

Thanks Sallypelt.
So if Portuguese law is the same, the McCanns have to prove that they were exposed to hatred or ridicule,  shunned, lowered in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparaged in their work. - Well it certainly wasn`t GA who did that because they`d done that themselves many months before the book was even published in the eyes of many right-thinking members of society.

Newintown wrote:

tiny wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Yep, this is what Susan Hubbard did say.  You couldn't make it up could you, he was co-ordinator of the investigation FGS


martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 22s
#madeleine Mrs Hubbard said McCanns could not believe Mr Amaral was allowed to write his book "without any facts."

I SAY, KEEP OL' MOTHER HUBBARD IN THE WITNESS BOX ALL DAY!

SHE'S A GEM..................................FOR GA!

I second that jeanmonroe,didn't Mr Amaral write the book from the evidence in the files,or have I got that wrong,

And wasn't it the public prosecutor who said that the McCanns have "failed to prove their complete innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine" before the case was shelved?

Yes!

Woofer wrote:I`m still not sure what has to be proved in this case. Do the McCanns have to prove that what was written by GA was untrue?  Or do they just have to prove that the book held up the search for Madeleine?

Imo the McCanns have to prove that it was an abduction, that the PJ are wrong, Amaral idem. And don't forget that the British pollice said that there was no clear evidence that the McCanns were not involved in the disappearance, Kate told it in her book.
A whole police force is trying to find Madeleine, the Yard, how come the McCanns are saying that Amaral's book is destroying the search for her?

Woofer wrote:Just like the Queen, she makes statements but no one is allowed to ask questions.

Hah, hah, hah, that is funny!

Hope Ms Loach gets her act together for today.

She wasn't even wearing a good quality wristband yesterday!

Perhaps she'll abduct one from the fragrant Mrs Hubbard,

She was wearing TWO!

Anyway, Fronty's list of hearsayers today is:

Lawyer, who defends paedos
Pyschic er pyscho umm head blokey
possibly Dave 'Grabbit' Edgar 'my very generous paymasters wuz well proper upset guv...and... that's all i gotta say about that'
and the star turn,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Mrs 'NO i DID NOT ask Kate if she killed my grandaughter... why would i?' Healy.

ETA:
Imho, smart move by GA and the closed court thingy.
He knew , imo, that the McS wouldn't be able to resist challenging it and wanted their BFF devastating 'evidence' to be heard in open court.
That worked so very well then,,,,,,for Mr Amaral!