Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by Cristobell 14.09.13 19:02

Agree Aquila. I think the whole situation the family are in is horrendous, I would feel pity, but it is driven by the parents, they could have stopped all this long ago. I worry about those children, if the mccanns think they can keep them in a cocoon, they are very much mistaken. The internet is still relatively new, and I doubt there is any way to police it, beyond parental controls, and if most kids are like mine were, they will crack them in minutes! What Goncalo says is in the PJ files, will they have to be removed from public view, and how will that affect the Constitution?

by Liz Eagles 14.09.13 19:18

Imagine being an eight year old, going to school and in the playground your friends and their parents only see you as Madeleine's brother/sister because your Mum parked her bum yet again on a tv sofa, mentioned you by name and told everyone that she was pleased that for the first time she was able to let go and locked you in a car to go and pay for petrol. Imagine your Mum tells everyone that she's not sure about sleep overs and camping on national television whilst she's telling everyone about her marathon run and operations on her feet.

Ask Mr. Trickey what he thinks of that.

by Ribisl 14.09.13 19:18

Can't help thinking that the twins are more of a prop to them, like Madeleine used to be, necessary to complete their idea of a perfect family. Their every word and action suggests narcissistic traits, as often discussed here. Otherwise why are they involving the twins as their co-plaintiffs on such a thin ground that they may yet read Amaral's book one day and suffer the consequences?

by Liz Eagles 14.09.13 19:23

Ribisl wrote:Can't help thinking that the twins are more of a prop to them, like Madeleine used to be, necessary to complete their idea of a perfect family. Their every word and action suggests narcissistic traits, as often discussed here. Otherwise why are they involving the twins as their co-plaintiffs on such a thin ground that they may yet read Amaral's book one day and suffer the consequences?

A huge libel payout will pay for a lot of private education for the twins perhaps affording senior boarding school and a university education. This is just an observation of mine and only my opinion.

by **Hobs** 14.09.13 19:30

Something i was pondering last night re:the mccanns.

We both know they are lying through their teeth, this is a given.

They have tried to avoid appearing in court despite all thier litigation, the result being with big enough threats from big enough lawyer ~ take a bow carter ruck~ they have been pretty successful in said endeavor, the two time they have appeared in a court of some kind was when they tried to get Gonacalo Amarals book banned, won one lost two and the levesone enquiry into phone hacking where they were witnesses rather than the paliantiff so probably felt pretty safe. It was interesting to note in the latter the word abduction was never mentioned (since they testified on oath) and kate commited perjury by claiming there was never any evidence of body fluids despite coming up with excuses for why said fluids were found.

This sets a pattern to their behavior which is easy to find , follow and understand.

It boils down to suing everyone who disagrees with their version of events despite all the evidence, shout and threaten with a big enough rod and settlement will be reached out of court which the public isn't told and which they support by making statements outside the court.

This tells me that for some reason the mccanns have an aversion to court despite being the plaintiffs.

This makes me go hmmm and then ask why.

As you are aware they are currently in court claiming the ex lead detective Goncalo Amaral libelled them in his book and documentary.

You may be aware or not that the mccanns, tried to come to a deal with Dr Amaral.
T
hey offered to drop the case against him if he accepted their offer to his satisfaction which was whatever was offered by them, something he refused.

What stands out is that it is almost unheard of for PLAINTIFFS to offer to capitulate and strike a deal to the DEFENDANT'S satisfaction.

Plaintiffs are the ones who brought the case, they are the ones claiming injury of some kind, it is the defendant who makes the offer in order to minimise any penalty.

By trying to make a deal with the defendant, the man they are suing for libel i would logically presume they are trying to avoid appearing in court.
Since they brought the claim i have to wonder why they don't want the case to go to court?
Would it be wrong to assume they don't want to appear in court because they fear having to testify and explain their words and behavior and lack of.
This would be the perfect place to aske the 48 questions she refused to answer since they cannot say no comment or refuse to answer, something they may have been made aware of, plus they could be cross examined on their answers especially question 49 where kate admits by not answering she is hindering the searrch for her daughter, something she is claiming dr Amaral's book and documentary did.
That question 49 alone should be enough to have the case tossed, and cause the court to wonder why kate is not being sued by gerry, the twins and even her suing herself

How can you claim libel etc and it has hurt the search when you as the parent did the exact same thing you are accusing the defendant of?
Since he turned down their offer( which probably included a gag order so they could spin it to suit them and he couldn't tell the truth)
They either had to drop the case quietly and muzzle the UK media as per usual or go ahead and try and bluster their way through.

As we have seen, the case is currently in court, i would expect to see both kate and gerry as we saw before when they tried to ban the book, instead we see kate and either her mom or the priest's wife and some psychologist who has met them once and talked to them on the phone.
Since both parents are claiming libel and we know they are happy to leave their kids with anyone if not on their lonesome, i have to ask why no gerry?
Are the rumors about a split true?

By leaving her to appear on her own he is taking a big risk since we know she is volatile and liable to open mouth and insert foot without his controlling the strings, a vertitable loose cannon so to speak.

Anyhow, it appears that neither parent is going to testify, rather they will just be there, which led me to ponder.

They brought the case, they are the plaintiffs, surely it is expected that as the plaintiffs they will be expected to take the stand and tell their version of events and how it has impacted them and their family.

If, as is claimed they won't be testifying , i want to know why?

What will happen is that 'witnesses' will take the stand to tell how the plaintiffs were affected by the book and documentary.

At best their testimony is hearsay which is not accepted in a court of law.
Anyone can get up and say what they like in support of the plaintiffs, their words will at best be their impressions of what they saw and at worst what the plaintiffs told them to say to support their case.
Since they are not the plaintiffs anything they say in regard to the case can be ignored, they can only honestly testify about how they themselves were affected otherwise they are unreliable witnesses.

Yesterday the case was abrubtly ended for the day.

The lawyers for the mccanns suggested that further testimony be written down and used in court so as to save the costs of flying out from the UK.

This would suit the mccanns fine.
They can write their testimony, hand it to the court and say nothing, avoiding the chance to tesify on the stand under oath avoiding the risk of perjury.
It also means they cannot be cross examined. which means they can't be questioned about the discrepencies, the non searching, the jogging, the fund, the announcement by kate she wanted to press a button and they would ALL be gone ( yeah it makes sense lose a child who is dead, contemplate murdering the remaining children so they would all be togeather or at best murdering two children and making a live Madeleine an orphan, this she tells us she knows Madeleine is dead oops etc.

As she claims his book and documentary have stopped people searching for a live Madeleine, could she perhaps explain all the 'sighting' since the book and documentary came out?

Being forced to testify in open court allows the court to see the exact words used, their body language and most importantly face cross examination, something i know the mccanns are desperate to avoid as if they tell the truth they are screwed, if they lie they face perjury charges so are screwed.

I really hope Dr Amaral calls them to the stand or the judge tells them they must testify in person or face losing the case and then charges of vexatious litigation and a counter suit by Dr Amaral for libel, slander and anything else he can think of.

I suspect they were advised to file the suit, toss in carter-ruck and wait for the defendant to capitulate and pay out thus nullifying the need to appear in court.

I also suspect they were advised Dr.Amaral would not capitulate, that they would have to testify in court under threat of perjury and thus should drop the case, claim they were doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and carry on as normal.

We both know they do not like being told no and will not listen to good advice especially if they see money on the horizon.

The claims they were advised not to appear by SY are nonsense, SY would be hoping with fingers crossed they would go to court as everything they did and said could be used as evidence. ( we all know that why the police love pressers when the POI tells their sob story)

The mccanns fail to realise the rogs are public knowledge, their witness statements which were recordered, can be admitted to court and used against them especially when subsequent statements differ, the discrepencies noted.

Kate clearly failed to understand her bewk nails her to a specific version of events and again the discrepencies noted and used against them in a court of law.
The same goes for media interviews and statements.

Everytime they tell a lie it is noted and compared to earlier statements.
It is hard enough remembering what lie you told to whom let alone what you claimed happened in a book, interview or statement. especially today with the internet.

They cannot afford to take the stand to tell their version of events as they canniot refuse to comment )plead the 5th and will have to answer every question.
The moment they get crossed examined it will all fall apart.
They cannot afford to drop the case since Dr Amaral can rightly countersue, they can face charges of vexatious litigation plus they cannot spin the story that they did it to p[rotect the twins, save the fund money ( which would then beg the questions why they are using money donated to find Madeleine to pay their legal fees which is against their published rules)
Remember gerry getting pissed because he said they had all this money in the fund and they couldn't use it?

In their case greed overcame the truth.

by Guest 14.09.13 19:41

Hobs wrote:Something i was pondering last night re:the mccanns.

We both know they are lying through their teeth, this is a given.

They have tried to avoid appearing in court despite all thier litigation, the result being with big enough threats from big enough lawyer ~ take a bow carter ruck~ they have been pretty successful in said endeavor, the two time they have appeared in a court of some kind was when they tried to get Gonacalo Amarals book banned, won one lost two and the levesone enquiry into phone hacking where they were witnesses rather than the paliantiff so probably felt pretty safe. It was interesting to note in the latter the word abduction was never mentioned (since they testified on oath) and kate commited perjury by claiming there was never any evidence of body fluids despite coming up with excuses for why said fluids were found.

This sets a pattern to their behavior which is easy to find , follow and understand.

It boils down to suing everyone who disagrees with their version of events despite all the evidence, shout and threaten with a big enough rod and settlement will be reached out of court which the public isn't told and which they support by making statements outside the court.

This tells me that for some reason the mccanns have an aversion to court despite being the plaintiffs.

This makes me go hmmm and then ask why.

As you are aware they are currently in court claiming the ex lead detective Goncalo Amaral libelled them in his book and documentary.

You may be aware or not that the mccanns, tried to come to a deal with Dr Amaral.
T
hey offered to drop the case against him if he accepted their offer to his satisfaction which was whatever was offered by them, something he refused.

What stands out is that it is almost unheard of for PLAINTIFFS to offer to capitulate and strike a deal to the DEFENDANT'S satisfaction.

Plaintiffs are the ones who brought the case, they are the ones claiming injury of some kind, it is the defendant who makes the offer in order to minimise any penalty.

By trying to make a deal with the defendant, the man they are suing for libel i would logically presume they are trying to avoid appearing in court.
Since they brought the claim i have to wonder why they don't want the case to go to court?
Would it be wrong to assume they don't want to appear in court because they fear having to testify and explain their words and behavior and lack of.
This would be the perfect place to aske the 48 questions she refused to answer since they cannot say no comment or refuse to answer, something they may have been made aware of, plus they could be cross examined on their answers especially question 49 where kate admits by not answering she is hindering the searrch for her daughter, something she is claiming dr Amaral's book and documentary did.
That question 49 alone should be enough to have the case tossed, and cause the court to wonder why kate is not being sued by gerry, the twins and even her suing herself

How can you claim libel etc and it has hurt the search when you as the parent did the exact same thing you are accusing the defendant of?
Since he turned down their offer( which probably included a gag order so they could spin it to suit them and he couldn't tell the truth)
They either had to drop the case quietly and muzzle the UK media as per usual or go ahead and try and bluster their way through.

As we have seen, the case is currently in court, i would expect to see both kate and gerry as we saw before when they tried to ban the book, instead we see kate and either her mom or the priest's wife and some psychologist who has met them once and talked to them on the phone.
Since both parents are claiming libel and we know they are happy to leave their kids with anyone if not on their lonesome, i have to ask why no gerry?
Are the rumors about a split true?

By leaving her to appear on her own he is taking a big risk since we know she is volatile and liable to open mouth and insert foot without his controlling the strings, a vertitable loose cannon so to speak.

Anyhow, it appears that neither parent is going to testify, rather they will just be there, which led me to ponder.

They brought the case, they are the plaintiffs, surely it is expected that as the plaintiffs they will be expected to take the stand and tell their version of events and how it has impacted them and their family.

If, as is claimed they won't be testifying , i want to know why?

What will happen is that 'witnesses' will take the stand to tell how the plaintiffs were affected by the book and documentary.

At best their testimony is hearsay which is not accepted in a court of law.
Anyone can get up and say what they like in support of the plaintiffs, their words will at best be their impressions of what they saw and at worst what the plaintiffs told them to say to support their case.
Since they are not the plaintiffs anything they say in regard to the case can be ignored, they can only honestly testify about how they themselves were affected otherwise they are unreliable witnesses.

Yesterday the case was abrubtly ended for the day.

The lawyers for the mccanns suggested that further testimony be written down and used in court so as to save the costs of flying out from the UK.

This would suit the mccanns fine.
They can write their testimony, hand it to the court and say nothing, avoiding the chance to tesify on the stand under oath avoiding the risk of perjury.
It also means they cannot be cross examined. which means they can't be questioned about the discrepencies, the non searching, the jogging, the fund, the announcement by kate she wanted to press a button and they would ALL be gone ( yeah it makes sense lose a child who is dead, contemplate murdering the remaining children so they would all be togeather or at best murdering two children and making a live Madeleine an orphan, this she tells us she knows Madeleine is dead oops etc.

As she claims his book and documentary have stopped people searching for a live Madeleine, could she perhaps explain all the 'sighting' since the book and documentary came out?

Being forced to testify in open court allows the court to see the exact words used, their body language and most importantly face cross examination, something i know the mccanns are desperate to avoid as if they tell the truth they are screwed, if they lie they face perjury charges so are screwed.

I really hope Dr Amaral calls them to the stand or the judge tells them they must testify in person or face losing the case and then charges of vexatious litigation and a counter suit by Dr Amaral for libel, slander and anything else he can think of.

I suspect they were advised to file the suit, toss in carter-ruck and wait for the defendant to capitulate and pay out thus nullifying the need to appear in court.

I also suspect they were advised Dr.Amaral would not capitulate, that they would have to testify in court under threat of perjury and thus should drop the case, claim they were doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and carry on as normal.

We both know they do not like being told no and will not listen to good advice especially if they see money on the horizon.

The claims they were advised not to appear by SY are nonsense, SY would be hoping with fingers crossed they would go to court as everything they did and said could be used as evidence. ( we all know that why the police love pressers when the POI tells their sob story)

The mccanns fail to realise the rogs are public knowledge, their witness statements which were recordered, can be admitted to court and used against them especially when subsequent statements differ, the discrepencies noted.

Kate clearly failed to understand her bewk nails her to a specific version of events and again the discrepencies noted and used against them in a court of law.
The same goes for media interviews and statements.

Everytime they tell a lie it is noted and compared to earlier statements.
It is hard enough remembering what lie you told to whom let alone what you claimed happened in a book, interview or statement. especially today with the internet.

They cannot afford to take the stand to tell their version of events as they canniot refuse to comment )plead the 5th and will have to answer every question.
The moment they get crossed examined it will all fall apart.
They cannot afford to drop the case since Dr Amaral can rightly countersue, they can face charges of vexatious litigation plus they cannot spin the story that they did it to p[rotect the twins, save the fund money ( which would then beg the questions why they are using money donated to find Madeleine to pay their legal fees which is against their published rules)
Remember gerry getting pissed because he said they had all this money in the fund and they couldn't use it?

In their case greed overcame the truth.

by Guest 14.09.13 19:42

BTW

what a lovely postscript you sport, about the things remembered!

by Ribisl 14.09.13 19:46

aquila wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Can't help thinking that the twins are more of a prop to them, like Madeleine used to be, necessary to complete their idea of a perfect family. Their every word and action suggests narcissistic traits, as often discussed here. Otherwise why are they involving the twins as their co-plaintiffs on such a thin ground that they may yet read Amaral's book one day and suffer the consequences?
A huge libel payout will pay for a lot of private education for the twins perhaps affording senior boarding school and a university education. This is just an observation of mine and only my opinion.

Trying to win sympathy votes that they themselves can no longer take for granted, perhaps?

by sweetex 14.09.13 19:47

Very interesting PDF file with the cross examining of Susan Hubbard.

Download from this link here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=npjoo6qqu666dthhqo375lf965&topic=2240.msg73878#msg73878

SH definitely failed the McCanns with her testimony.

e.g.

GP – Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine?
SH answers yes.
GP – And after the book was published?
SH answers yes.
GP – There's a website with an English version of the book. Do you know to whom this site belongs?
SH answers no.
GP – Do you know the Oprah Winfrey TV program?
SH answers no.

and a lot more :)

by jeanmonroe 14.09.13 19:49

Well Hobs THAT is a truly priceless piece of writing!

By the way I was just about to say all that!

Kudos to you my friend!

Best post award?

by plebgate 14.09.13 19:50

For me, his lawyer has said it all. No lies by Mr. A. EVERYTHING taken from the offical investigation files.

How can they say he is lying when they do no enter the witness box and swear on oath that everything they have said is the truth?

Round and round and round they go. My belief is that Mr. A. called their bluff, they threatened to sue and went ahead hoping or believing that he would settle out of court. He did not, so now Mrs. has to sit in the court room listening to her witnesses( who were not even on the 2007 holiday) swear on oath that she and her husband were depressed blah blah- and they know this because they were told that was the case. Did they witness this state of depression etc. every day, I would hazard a guess and say no. Hearsay never did win a court case and I believe it will not win this one either.

Go Rocky Amaral, go.

by gbwales 14.09.13 21:18

plebgate wrote:
How can they say he is lying when they do no enter the witness box and swear on oath that everything they have said is the truth?

Spot on.

by gbwales 14.09.13 21:27

Hobs wrote:
They brought the case, they are the plaintiffs, surely it is expected that as the plaintiffs they will be expected to take the stand and tell their version of events and how it has impacted them and their family.

If, as is claimed they won't be testifying , i want to know why?

What will happen is that 'witnesses' will take the stand to tell how the plaintiffs were affected by the book and documentary.

At best their testimony is hearsay which is not accepted in a court of law.

.....

Being forced to testify in open court allows the court to see the exact words used, their body language and most importantly face cross examination, something i know the mccanns are desperate to avoid as if they tell the truth they are screwed, if they lie they face perjury charges so are screwed.

To me it's amazing that the plaintiffs would not themselves put the case on what damage the book has caused.
And I think you've hit on both the problems of having "witnesses" (that is by far the loosest meaning of "witness" I've ever heard of!) and also on the matter of how they might fare if they took the stand themselves.

The witnesses appear to be a bit of a car-crash don't they...
And your point about how the McCanns themselves would look, behave, and the risks of cross-examination under oath I think probably is the surest reason why they're not actively participating, but doing their usual 'no questions' act out on the courthouse steps instead.

by GRACEFUL1 14.09.13 21:41

Duarte - Opinion
A sort of Open Letter to Mrs. Duarte - Opinion
14 September 2013 | Posted by Joana Morais Leave a Comment

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 30 DailyMailcover111022010

Daily Mail cover image, 2010, McCann's versus Amaral book banning trial

«...“Under my breath I found myself whispering, “fucking tosser, fucking tosser”. This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser’…” » Kate McCann in her book titled Madeleine, on the disdain she felt towards the Portuguese police liaison officer

Never in recent years I have seen and heard such a huge flow of comments against the McCann couple libel action, the couple, their Portuguese supporters, their Portuguese lawyers.

In the past years, particularly in the last two years, we, in Portugal, have been living under a very harsh and long financial crisis, some parents have had to take their children from school, others have committed suicide mirroring Greek and Spanish parents because they are unable to provide for their families and to feed their children...

Most commentators have no idea that the costs of the investigation to the English child's disappearance have surpassed by far the total spent in all the missing Portuguese children and teenagers that have disappeared before and after Madeleine and that the latest Scotland Yard stunt while it takes place in Portuguese soil, the biased review into the Judiciary Police work ordered by David Cameron, as well as an alleged Judiciary Police investigation into the previous PJ teams investigations is being supported by the Portuguese tax payers. The total, not counting with the several families that lost their jobs at the Ocean Club or persons in the Algarve that were affected adversely directly by the McCanns continuous propaganda machine since 2007 and the subsequences to the Portuguese economy in 6 years, is now estimated well above 5 million euros. That in Portugal alone, no idea how many millions were wasted in dubious detectives hired by the McCanns' fighting fund aka Madeleine's search fund, nor what's the current UK tax payers bill of the farce performed by the Scotland Yard/Met Police team.

However, it's not the money which was spent and/or will be spent [and maybe wasted in a whitewash] that incenses the commentators, it's the fact that Justice was not blind in this case.

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 30 De140813b

The McCanns "distress" as shown in a recent UK TV appearance

They all agree, the McCanns and their friends "should have been taken to court for the negligence of their children", for "failing systematically to cooperate with the Judiciary Police" when they were asked to do so, for Kate's book which has "calumnious and false statements", and above all for appearing to be "profiting" from whatever has happened to Madeleine, their 3 year old daughter and even younger siblings that they left alone, unguarded, unsupervised not one night, but several in May 2007. As someone said before, if the McCanns were Portuguese they would have gone to court at least to answer for their actions and would likely be sent to prison.

It's no wonder then even if some of the commentators feel no empathy towards 'Gonçalo Amaral the cop', they feel an immediate rapport with 'Gonçalo Amaral the brave Portuguese family man', who has single handed fought for 6 years the xenophobic British media, the despicable attacks to his character and to his family made by McCann supporters, trolls, cyberbullies and no doubt by people close to the couple, that were then echoed around the world. A man who the McCanns have targeted, deprived of his assets, whose family and friends have been under an immense distress. A man who has, despite the immense hypocrisy and lack of fortitude of the Portuguese politicians and of a country's Justice that has failed him, persisted, fighting resolutely for democratic pillars and moral values such has Freedom of Expression and Truth.

---

The following is a translation of a public signed comment, a sort of open letter to Mrs. Isabel Duarte, the McCanns lawyer, published on facebook, under a video broadcast by Sic Notícias two days ago where Mrs. Duarte appeared to give a mini interview [translated bellow], that epitomises the feelings of most Portuguese people, one of hundreds posted online or spoken as word of mouth.

Madam Isabel Duarte,

I hereby express the most complete contempt for the miserable job that you have accepted - if it was not for the money you even have less excuses.

You, Madam, accept to represent a couple of con artists (not to accuse them of that which I have no evidence) against a professional investigator that had the dignity to resign from his job in order to express his ideas?

Where do you, Madam, think that you live? As far as I know we are a democratic country where freedom of thought and expression are protected by law. Where does it say in our Constitution that we can not make use of these rights if they upset subjects of the United Kingdom?

You, Madam, above anyone else should know that that which you defend is placing in question rights that have claimed too many tears and blood to acquire. To defend that scum against a man who did nothing but exercise his recognized democratic rights is to shoot our own democracy. Just that, Madam, would suffice to express my utmost contempt. But there is more. Your clients, in particular that abominable woman who made in her book many vile statements and that wishes to see the detective Amaral suffering, is, in my opinion, if not suspected of filicide at least is of obstruction to justice.

Money does not pay everything Mrs. Isabel Duarte, and certainly does not pay the honour and dignity - to support those creatures is to sell your soul to the devil.

Be Happy, if you can.

Luis Miranda

*photo with Isabel Duarte and Kate McCann, by Chris Graeme/Algarve Resident

Video
broadcast by SICN 12.09.2013

TV anchor: It started today the trial that opposes the McCann couple against Gonçalo Amaral. Kate McCann is present at the trial. Maddie's parents accuse the former Judiciary Police inspector of defamatory statements and guarantee that Gonçalo Amaral has harmed Madeleine's searches. The McCann family asks for 1,2 million euros of compensation, Gonçalo Amaral's assets were also seized, who published the book "A Verdade da Mentira" where statements were made regarding the disappearance of the child which the McCanns allege to have hindered the family's image and the investigations. The lawyer for the McCann family expects a speedy trial.

Isabel Duarte [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon]: The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... Aaaand as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]

Journalist in situ: In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are five.

by sallypelt 14.09.13 21:56

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. JUST GIVE ME MONEY!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vH3lBI5Arc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkOmcIl79s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sor9GzivGbk

by **PeterMac** 14.09.13 22:29

The bit I loved was this

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions
SO – How many times a week did the McCanns come to your place?
SH says about once a week. [Not EXACTLY A CLOSE FRIEND THEN > > >! ] She adds she saw mainly Kate and that Kate cried when she was with her.
SO – Was there a difference between the sorrow due to the disappearance and the sorrow due to the loss?
The judge reacts, the lawyer argues the feelings can be the same and the motives different. The
judge agrees but warns that the question shouldn't imply the conclusion.

\
Good judge !

by Seek truth 14.09.13 22:33

I guess Kate knew the judge would come up with this, is it why she was happy, laughing, when entering?

I feel the book actually helped look for Madeleine, had more detail than KATE'S ! and Amarals conclusion didn't convince me, their TV interviews did! made me see they were guilty as hell, OMG.

by JackieL 14.09.13 22:55

gbwales wrote:
plebgate wrote:
How can they say he is lying when they do no enter the witness box and swear on oath that everything they have said is the truth?
Spot on.

Hear! Hear!

by Guest 14.09.13 23:07

PeterMac wrote:The bit I loved was this
d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions
SO – How many times a week did the McCanns come to your place?
SH says about once a week. [Not EXACTLY A CLOSE FRIEND THEN > > >! ] She adds she saw mainly Kate and that Kate cried when she was with her.
SO – Was there a difference between the sorrow due to the disappearance and the sorrow due to the loss?
The judge reacts, the lawyer argues the feelings can be the same and the motives different. The
judge agrees but warns that the question shouldn't imply the conclusion.
\
Good judge !

Hopefully, not therefore pulled off the case

Things went, IFAIMC according to the normal world

Hopefully the Judge was not removed

For, how in the name of bleeding JSZ could this judge remove herself in the case of the century? After .......months of preparation?

Simple/stupid question: who paid what for her to have her remove herself?

Portugal: this would not agree with you at all!

by Ayniia 14.09.13 23:11

Seek truth wrote:I guess Kate knew the judge would come up with this, is it why she was happy, laughing, when entering?

I feel the book actually helped look for Madeleine, had more detail than KATE'S ! and Amarals conclusion didn't convince me, their TV interviews did! made me see they were guilty as hell, OMG.

I would love to be able to testify that, I read GA book more than once, saw GA documentary countless times, spent hours and hours watching videos,reading about the case. I work in an Airport,I see hundreds of people every day and STILL once in a while I get myself looking at a blonde foreigner girl just to...make sure is not Madeleine. It may sound silly,but I do!
I bet any one of us searched for her more than her parents! I mean, what sense does it make, their daughter just vanished,she could be around the corner and what do they do? Go jogging,remember canceling groceries delivery, give interviews,write blogs,put up posters, trow balloons, wear wristbands to remind people of her...seriously It's revolting! It hurts my heart every time I say this but when my dog went missing I searched more than them! I didn't slept or eat until like 4 days later when I collapsed.
Maybe they thought that they could just go on trial and say that they were so devastated by the book,and that it was going to be enough. Well,it's not and I can't see any way they will win this trial.

by Woofer 14.09.13 23:18

Hobs - good post, thanks.

You said "They brought the case, they are the plaintiffs, surely it is expected that as the plaintiffs they will be expected to take the stand and tell their version of events and how it has impacted them and their family.

If, as is claimed they won't be testifying , i want to know why?"

You`ve made some good points about why they won`t be testifying (from their perspective) but I can`t understand how this can be called justice - is this normal in any court? Apparently GA won`t be testifying either - how weird.

by suzyjohnson 15.09.13 0:23

Ayniia wrote:1) 'STILL once in a while I get myself looking at a blonde foreigner girl just to...make sure is not Madeleine. It may sound silly,but I do!'

2) Maybe they thought that they could just go on trial and say that they were so devastated by the book,and that it was going to be enough.

3) Well,it's not and I can't see any way they will win this trial.

1) Yes, me too, Ayniia

2) Well that strategy has worked just fine up to now in the Uk. (And that may be what has lulled them into a false sense of security. In Portugal though, the McCanns are on very different ground)

3) You're right it isn't enough, I can't see that the McCanns could possibly win the trial either.

In fact, I don't suppose any of the McCanns current options appeal to them very much,
either, take the stand themselves and risk perjury or saying more than they mean to
continuing with the trial which actually gives more publicity to Amaral's book
or, continuing with the trial (and publicity), if GA wins, which he will, then newspapers will print the reasons why he has won
or, letting Amaral win now (without the ongoing publicity) but the newspapers will still speculate as to why they conceded to Amaral.

Is it at all possible that the trial has been stopped because the judge has pointed out that evidence presented so far by the McCann witnesses is largely irrelevant to the case?

by JackieL 15.09.13 0:36

Woofer wrote:Hobs - good post, thanks. Hear hear!

You said "They brought the case, they are the plaintiffs, surely it is expected that as the plaintiffs they will be expected to take the stand and tell their version of events and how it has impacted them and their family.

If, as is claimed they won't be testifying , i want to know why?"

You`ve made some good points about why they won`t be testifying (from their perspective) but I can`t understand how this can be called justice - is this normal in any court? Apparently GA won`t be testifying either - how weird. I wonder if GA has submitted a written statement?

by Woofer 15.09.13 1:12

I`ve just re-read some of GA`s book and a couple of threads re: `Stu` -

(from Ch.21 of GA`s book - "According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal. Why would the head of the British government be interested in a lowly Portuguese official? We refuse to believe the rumours going around, according to which the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon was dependent on my dismissal. Rumours, of course, nothing more. I cannot help but think that for the first time in its history, the judiciary police has dismissed a simple official from his post because of external pressure."),

Together with this and the fact that the McCann`s petition for libel is so pathetic and causing even more people to read GA`s book, I wonder if the McCanns are really the prime movers behind wanting to shut GA up.

by suzyjohnson 15.09.13 1:16

JackieL wrote:
Woofer wrote:Apparently GA won`t be testifying either - how weird. I wonder if GA has submitted a written statement?

JackieL, possibly. Does GA have to make a statement at all? Isn't it up to the McCanns to show that anything he has said either in his book or documentary is libellous? If they cannot prove that then GA doesn't have to defend anything?

Log in for more topics