LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Have the 'A' words, Abducted or Abduction been uttered or heard in the courtroom so far?

I heard that ID hasn't dared say them so far, not a surprise really given the McCanns own lawyer in London got 'stung' when she said 'Madeleine HAD been abducted' without a scintilla of evidence provided by her to back up her sworn affadavit.

Anyone know if any other 'witnesses' in Lisbon, to date, have said either of those 'words'?

Also, are all the 'credible witnesses' back in the UK now or are they in PDL actually 'searching' for Madeleine's 'dungeon lair' in the lawless villages led by the ELITE ex PI Dave'Grabbit' Edgar?

If all the 'credible witnesses' are NOT in PDL actually 'searching' then why the f**k NOT?
Given they'd do ANYTHING to find Madeleine.

Have answered my own q by watching GA's lawyer give a statement in English to a journo. He spent most of those minutes stating that GA has not created anything in his book but had come to a conclusion based on the investigative process.
 He states GA's right to express his opinions.
 He then gives the reason for asking for a trial held in private as being to protect Madeleine as they do not KNOW whether the child is alive or dead.
  What is wrong with that? Why do the pros say this has closed the case for GA ?
 He states an opinion, a belief, in his book.
  Of course he can't know. There would need to be a body for that.
 I doubt as pros are saying that ID will try to use this, to me it is nothing but semantics.
 

important p.s.  GA's lawyer stated that Maddie is probably dead. So G's belief still stands. I don't think he has sneakily given this statement to damage his client as the more extreme pros are speculating.

@ russiandoll - agree, it sounds like he's being very prudent and concise about what words and phrases he's using - "knowing" is a very special kind of thing, and he's wise to say what counts as his belief (based on what most be the most comprehensive knowledge of the case out there) - he comes across as calm, measured and rational. Can't do anything but good, that position.

gbwales wrote:@ russiandoll - agree, it sounds like he's being very prudent and concise about what words and phrases he's using - "knowing" is a very special kind of thing, and he's wise to say what counts as his belief (based on what most be the most comprehensive knowledge of the case out there) - he comes across as calm, measured and rational. Can't do anything but good, that position.

Mr Amaral "TRUELY BELIEVES" what he has said and written based on the PJ Final Report

GAME OVER!

Qjeanmonroe wrote:

gbwales wrote:@ russiandoll - agree, it sounds like he's being very prudent and concise about what words and phrases he's using - "knowing" is a very special kind of thing, and he's wise to say what counts as his belief (based on what most be the most comprehensive knowledge of the case out there) - he comes across as calm, measured and rational. Can't do anything but good, that position.

Mr Amaral "TRUELY BELIEVES" what he has said and written,

GAME OVER!

  Yes, and given the depth and substance of evidence on which his belief is founded, and his clear personal strength and integrity, I'm totally with that!

Most odd choice of witnesses.

A PI ?

Victims Mother?

A psychologist?

A Priest's wife?

Why not er:

A serving Police Officer?
A former Prime Minister?
A Doctor WITNESS that is prepared to testify under OATH that GAs book is a pack of unsubstantiated LIES?
The PDL Priest at the time of the disappearance?

All of the above would carry a bit more clout in a courtroom. This smacks of Kate just waving the money saying "there's a few grand in it for you if come out to portugal for a couple of weeks, live it up in a 5 star and turn up to make a speech which I will dictate for you. All you have to do is memorise the answers to some questions".

Of course I could be completely wrong, The Portuguese legal system is secretly hoping to hire British ex policemen to bring to justice the paedophiles lurking in the lawless villages.  I could go on and say some equally daft things about the rest but that might damage the search for poor Madeleine and I do not want to be Carter Fucked. Besides there are 2 females involved and I don't want them to attack my delicate little genitalia.      

|MHO:

The Judge in this case has also seen the multitude of GRINNING/LAUGHING pictures, in papers and tv studios, of the McCanns in 'unguarded' moments despite their claim to being in a state of constant depression and turmoil, strangely only brought about from the exact date, 24th July 2008, the day Mr GA's book was published.

Am I correct in what I read that Mr Amaral has written a second book?  He seems to have publishing/copywrite problems with getting his first book published in English.  Perhaps he will take the direct route of self publication this time.

Do what I say, don't do what I do.

Why should the world search for Madeleine if her parents never did?

dentdelion wrote:Am I correct in what I read that Mr Amaral has written a second book?  He seems to have publishing/copywrite problems with getting his first book published in English.  Perhaps he will take the direct route of self publication this time.

IF the McCanns lose this i'd imagine that there would be a multitude of worldwide publishers rushing around to 'sign up' GA!

Maybe even the publishers that produced the Kate McCann's 'bewks'

Irony heaped upon irony!

[quote="PeterMac"]

Cristobell wrote:They were notorious long before Goncalo put pen to paper.

Mother Hubbard let the cat out of the bag as well.  This is from l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun

Kate and Gerry McCann have put all their energy into defending themselves says Ma Hubbard instead of using it to search for Madeleine.
Lest we forget:-    Energy = Money
Perhaps they have a secret stash, a little something hidden away for a rainy day, yet to be found?
Who knows?   It would certainly explain a few matters.
Almost forgot, could be that all of these people, the Carter Ruck’s, the Isabel Duarte's and all others who make up the McCann army of lawyers, who they have employed to defend themselves – work for free?
No problem here either – their accounts will establish that one too.
Now let us all think back to when Kate and Gerry McCann FIRST employed their army of solicitors to DEFEND THEMSELVES..?
I for one could not pin point the exact date, that is, without first doing some checking - but I can safely say – It was long before Goncalo Amaral put pen to paper…

Begs the question - What did they feel they needed defending, and by such an army?

And, they aptly called it *The Fighting Fund*.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

plebgate wrote:

maebee wrote:The best that KM could come up with was a Mr. Trickey. Where were her T7 friends?

  

I am surprised Cuddlecat wasn't on the list of witnesses.   It would have been as much use as the rest of them imo.

Probably more use to them, as it would keep quiet and not make stupid statements.

 So they have Trickey and Dickie (slang for detective)....

  

Just in case anyone has missed them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrhqD20suVU

GRACEFUL1 wrote:Just in case anyone has missed them

Merged to this thread as about the libel case.

dated today :

14 September 2013 | Posted by  Joana Morais Leave a Comment




by Luís Fontes

The former coordinator of the Judiciary Police of Portimão Gonçalo Amaral crossed paths again yesterday, at the Palácio da Justiça,in Lisboa, with Kate McCann, who demands in court for a indemnification of one million and 250 thousand euro. In question there are the alleged devastating effects caused by the publication of the book 'A Verdade da Mentira' [The Truth of the Lie], written by Gonçalo Amaral, in her family life and in the searches for Maddie that have [subsequently] ceased.

In the session two witnesses were heard, called by Kate's defence, a psychologist and a lawyer. Seated in an enormous bench, spaced with 10 meters of emptiness between them, Kate and Gonçalo Amaral never looked at each other. But Kate McCann, during one of the morning breaks, managed to see on his way out of the courtroom the former PJ inspector signing a book at the request of an elderly man that was there following the session.

 Santos de Oliveira, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, also signed the book at the request of the elderly man. Minutes later, the lawyer, on his way out of Palácio da Justiça, gave an impromptu press conference. He said he would only talk because Kate McCann had done so outside the court session on Thursday.

The lawyer said that the book was written with information contained in the criminal inquiry [to Madeleine's disappearance] and that the trial that is now taking place is about the crime of expressing an opinion [original: delito de opinião]. “There never was any formal criminal complaint and I find it very odd that one year had gone by since the publication of the book until a complaint for compensation was made, said Santos de Oliveira, who also recalled that Madeleine McCann's death “is considered as an hypothesis in the archiving dispatch” [see bellow relevant extract]. Santos de Oliveira also told that they had requested for the trial to take place behind closed doors to respect Maddie's memory. The child's parents were the ones who preferred a public trial.

in Diário de Notícias, paper edition, 14 September 2013

«Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

The Republic’s Prosecutor (José de Magalhães e Menezes)/The Joint General Prosecutor (João Melchior Gomes) in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4645-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)»

  p.s. from me   : Amaral's lawyer has stuck to the above in stating the lack of KNOWLEDGE re Maddie being dead or alive. He stated probably dead. He has worded his statement carefully, not dropped his client in the ** it as the cackling coven are saying.

Prehensile wrote:

lj wrote:About the psychologist:
It's not only irony, it is gd the same megalomaniacal arrogance as from the McCanns. Does he really think that we are too stupid and fall for that. I can't believe he stated that without having his fingers crossed on his back. If he believes this he should loose his license. The twins have much more to fear from Kate's book. You now the one she specially wrote for them. I forgot who it was, I believe Blacksmith, but I read it being described as a booklong suicide note. So true. Apart from having to wade, page by page, through their mothers psychiatric ramblings, they get it spelled out how their parents did NOT protect them. How they day after day, night after night put them in danger. How their parents defended that behaviour with arguments like "it was our vacation too".How, one day after Madeleine disappeared so you would expect the parents being extra protective, they had to be picked up from the creche by their parents themselves, oh horror, because no one else would do it, and that's just for starters. The danger is there, because it shows their real mother.

I have always believed that the parents would never face justice through the legal system, but that the twins, when they are a bit older, will deliver justice for Madeleine.They will come at an age they will search the internet, and they will as everyone else go through this phase were everything the parents say will be doubted. Then it will start: "mom, dad, why didn't you come when we were crying?". Dad what did you mean by "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"
"So what were you working so hard on that you could not search?" "Why didn't you answer the questions, mom?"  etc etc

I am really puzzled by the fact that the McCanns are always surrounded by idiots or frauds, or not really puzzled, I think that too a a very clear sign. But the level of unprofessionalism of these 2 days is shocking. It shows that none of them (OK Isabel Duarte aside) did any preparation for this. Did they really think that with their bluff they could talk those sardine munchers under the table? Amazing.



And if that psychologist really believes the world is safe it is time for him to grow up.

If I may butt in here and add to the list of questions S&A may ask their parents; "As doctors shouldn't you have known it was unhygienic for all three of us to have been sharing a toothbrush?".

Surely if it is true that all three shared one toothbrush, then that in its self is a form of child abuse.

Hey, Kate got herself bit by a stray dog and did not go for a rabies treatment. I think we can safely state that these doctors have no idea of infections, contamination, and neglect. And that's just to start. Would you have your self treated by these clowns?

Does anyone know what the breakdown of the damage claim is?
How much for Madeleine and how much for twins?
Thought the twins were down for £80,000 each.
Anyone know?

Prehensile wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I'm confused to Aquila.  If the McCanns were to win this case, which I can't see somehow, and get the million pounds, then that would mean that GA had libelled them and caused distress etc.  In that case, would the book still stay on sale?  The Supreme Court overturned the book ban, but with it still being on sale after the trial, then it would still be libelling them and causing distress wouldn't it?  In fact, this trial has probably resulted in even more sales and people reading it.........how does that work then.  Can this court overturn the Supreme Court decision if the McCanns win or does the book stay on the shelves, in which case the whole thing is a pointless exercise, well except for the money of course........but the twins would still be able to read the book anyway.

I know a man of GA's integrity would never do this, but he could concede, hand over the bucks and walk away quids in.
On the subject of the twins reading the book, I know where I stand,(if I were the McCann's) I would be actively encouraging my offspring to read it and point out the discrepancies to them, what honest parent wouldn't?

 

russiandoll wrote:What are twitter pros on about saying that GA's lawyer is on video stating that his client's request for a closed hearing was because he did not know whether M was alive or not?  That would mean that the case is done and dusted, he has changed his mind re his theory and surely if that were the case his lawyer would have settled out of court with the couple and the case would be over.
 I thought the reason was out of respect for Madeleine?

The official version coming out of GA's camp is that it was because they couldn't be certain whether Madeleine is dead or alive, therefore not to harm her in case she is alive. But I think it may have been more to do with trying to stop the British media from reporting twisted facts about the proceedings. Every UK paper seems to describe GA as a 'disgraced' policeman whenever his name is mentioned and refer to the 'botched' investigation carried out by him. If he has any self-respect, I can well imagine he might wish to avoid further potentially distressing smear by the McCann camp.

Update:

So far today another 10,845 people from all around the world have read Amaral's book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie' http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/

And that's only one site where they can read it online

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Update:

So far today another 10,845 people from all around the world have read Amaral's book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie' http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/

And that's only one site where they can read it online

 

The whole case is farcical, and I am even wondering if that is the reason it has been brought to an abrupt halt.  There is more information out there on the net than there has been on any similar case - ever - most of it coming from the McCanns themselves!  They started their global campaign on 4/5/07 and have never stopped.  Goncalo Amaral's book, probably accounts for less than 0.5% of mccann material available, not least the damning report of Taveres Al Meida and the PJ files.  They can't stop their children seeing what they are going to see - none of us can.  All trials set precedents.  If the mccanns win this, it puts every other publication in jeopardy - especially in Portugal, a country that knows more than most, the value of free speech.

Santos de Oliveira also told that they had requested for the trial to take place behind closed doors to respect Maddie's memory. The child's parents were the ones who preferred a public trial.

Which is in total contradiction to what their pink source had said ie that the Police advised them to stay away to avoid media frenzy.

Lie, spin, smoke and mirrors, you named it......it's all the same to them....they couldn't care less...

Blatant dishonesty.

Cristobell wrote:The whole case is farcical, and I am even wondering if that is the reason it has been brought to an abrupt halt.  There is more information out there on the net than there has been on any similar case - ever - most of it coming from the McCanns themselves!  They started their global campaign on 4/5/07 and have never stopped.  Goncalo Amaral's book, probably accounts for less than 0.5% of mccann material available, not least the damning report of Taveres Al Meida and the PJ files.  They can't stop their children seeing what they are going to see - none of us can.  All trials set precedents.  If the mccanns win this, it puts every other publication in jeopardy - especially in Portugal, a country that knows more than most, the value of free speech.

They can't stop their children reading their own bewk - the bewk that tells their own children they were left alone in an apartment on several evenings and whilst they were sleeping someone came in and abducted their sister. Now ask Trickey what he makes of that.

Editing to add:

Also ask Trickey if it's ok for the McCanns to constantly mention the names of their twins whilst sitting on TV sofas. Ask Trickey if in his opinion that it is ok for children who are now 8 years old to be referred to by name on national television by their parents who want their twins to have a normal life.