Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by pennylane 16.09.13 10:46

bobbin wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I've just realised that Emma Loach was the director of the (unintentionally) hilarious and revealing documentary Madeleine Was Here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439291/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3

A link to the first part for anyone who's missed this little gem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

Another quality witness to be sure!!
What I just love about these idiots is how in hell do they think we're taken in.
Re at 50 secs on the youtube above, part 1 of 5 of EL's documentary: Kate peers into the room, through a small opening in the door, SEES the twins in their cots (in the dark and behind the door) yet cannot make Maddie out, for bed-clothes? with her bed being on Kate's left, in her line of sight.
Emma Loach, you have shown yourself, firstly in your documentary to be most 'un-discerning' and now in court, to be an absolute crass own goal for Katie and Gerry.
May the truth prevail as soon as possible, because this is fast becoming a hideous train-wreck and it does Maddie such compound injustice.

It's always been 'a hideous train wreck' whenever any in-depth questions are applied to them, which is precisely why Team McCann have so desperately tried to settle before things got this far (imo).

by aiyoyo 16.09.13 10:47

PeterMac wrote:
Angelique wrote:"GP - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?
EL - says she saw it in bookshops."
I am absolutely amazed.
She blatantly lied in Court.
She knows she has - that's why she left upset.
They cannot stop themselves. Everyone who enters the McCanns' world ends up compromised.
Mitchell.
Tanner
Even Matorell was constrained to make a sworn statement to the High Court for which she admitted she had no "evidence". Mercifully she did admit it, and is thus immune from prosecution for perjury, - Kevin
but this from EL is a blatant untruth - and is provable as such.
It will not have gone unnoticed by GA's lawyers.

Why are they doing it ?

It's the same as Dave Edgar - He commits perjury when he said he worked with Portuguese Police for several years.
That can easily be verified, just by checking with the PJ.

As for the book, it is also provable just by checking with publisher and the distributor of the book.

by **PeterMac** 16.09.13 11:12

I suppose we should include in big letters that it is possible that EL was saying she saw it in a bookshop in another country, and obviously in a foreign language. Though it might have been helpful to the court if she had made that clear.
The way that exchange has been reported makes it capable of interpretation that she, an English woman, saw it on sale in a bookshop in England and in English.
Indeed I think the court would be entitled to think that, given the total absence of any qualifying words.

She may not have intended this. Perhaps she should be given the opportunity to return to the court and to explain, and to be cross examined.

Quoted from
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

GP - Do you know if the book was published in the UK ?
EL - says she saw it in bookshops.

Left hanging . . . but the context makes it clear that this is what people may understand. Whether they are entitled to is a matter for Isobel D.

by Newintown 16.09.13 11:25

PeterMac wrote:

TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
touché !

GP – Do you know the Oprah Winfrey TV program?
SH - answers no. The only person in the entire WORLD who has never heard of Oprah Winfrey ? ? ?
SO - Then why were they angry with the book?
SH - says they don't fear what the book says.
SO - Do you know if the book hampered the investigation?
SH - says she can't answer.
Quite. So why are you here ?

During this mornings session a psychologist, David Trickey was heard, he explained to the court the damage that the publication of that book would have caused to Maddie's younger siblings, Sean and Amelie, who are actually eight years old. However the defence refuted that argument since the expert only met with the children once and another time with the children's parents, all other contacts with the family were made by phone.

This morning we also heard as a witness an English lawyer who during the first 6 months of the case, between May and September of 2007, accompanied the McCann couple while he was in Portugal, however all statements advanced by this lawyer were also refuted since all effects that he witnessed took place previous to the book publication.
They need this adjournment to get back the the UK and sort out some more witnesses, I think.

Do you mean new witnesses or witnesses to be heard this week? I don't know whether they would be allowed to bring in any new witnesses at a late stage that have not already been endorsed by a lawyer and their statements put before the court to be included in the court papers, unless the process is different in Portugal.

I think the courts must have a deadline when all papers are presented to the court for a forthcoming trial, I can't remember what it was when I appeared in court, probably about 2-3 weeks at a guess.

by **PeterMac** 16.09.13 11:26

bobbin wrote:
Re at 50 secs on the youtube above, part 1 of 5 of EL's documentary: Kate peers into the room, through a small opening in the door, SEES the twins in their cots (in the dark and behind the door) yet cannot make Maddie out, for bed-clothes? with her bed being on Kate's left, in her line of sight.
Emma Loach, you have shown yourself, firstly in your documentary to be most 'un-discerning' and now in court, to be an absolute crass own goal for Katie and Gerry.
May the truth prevail as soon as possible, because this is fast becoming a hideous train-wreck and it does Maddie such compound injustice.

This video is where Kate says
" and literally as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, [demonstrates with both forearms together] that were closed, “wheesh’ like a gust of wind kind of blew them open."

When previously she said
"the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.”
and the ever helpful Gerry said
"the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open."

With friends like this . . . ?
Let us hope they have some more Witnesses.

by Newintown 16.09.13 11:30

tiny wrote:I wonder how Emma Loach feels today,knowing that she willingly LIED for the mccanns,also where is Mr Amarals book on sale in England as I would like to buy a copy or two.what a silly woman.

That could be why she left the court upset as she knew she'd said the wrong things and may have damaged the case.

It only takes one witness to make a crass statement and the whole thing could fall apart as happened to me. A witness for the other side said something unintentionally (they put their foot in mouth) to my barrister and the whole case fell apart after 2 years of legal wrangling.

by Woburn_exile 16.09.13 11:40

Newintown wrote:
PeterMac wrote:

TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
touché !

GP – Do you know the Oprah Winfrey TV program?
SH - answers no. The only person in the entire WORLD who has never heard of Oprah Winfrey ? ? ?
SO - Then why were they angry with the book?
SH - says they don't fear what the book says.
SO - Do you know if the book hampered the investigation?
SH - says she can't answer.
Quite. So why are you here ?

During this mornings session a psychologist, David Trickey was heard, he explained to the court the damage that the publication of that book would have caused to Maddie's younger siblings, Sean and Amelie, who are actually eight years old. However the defence refuted that argument since the expert only met with the children once and another time with the children's parents, all other contacts with the family were made by phone.

This morning we also heard as a witness an English lawyer who during the first 6 months of the case, between May and September of 2007, accompanied the McCann couple while he was in Portugal, however all statements advanced by this lawyer were also refuted since all effects that he witnessed took place previous to the book publication.
They need this adjournment to get back the the UK and sort out some more witnesses, I think.
Do you mean new witnesses or witnesses to be heard this week? I don't know whether they would be allowed to bring in any new witnesses at a late stage that have not already been endorsed by a lawyer and their statements put before the court to be included in the court papers, unless the process is different in Portugal.

I think the courts must have a deadline when all papers are presented to the court for a forthcoming trial, I can't remember what it was when I appeared in court, probably about 2-3 weeks at a guess.

In a surprise media frenzy they will introduce their star witnesses with all the celebrity hype of big brother or x factor none other than

CHERIEEEEEEEEEEEEE BLAIIIIRRRRRRRRRR

This great paragon of integrity and virtue will soon see them acting in total belief of everything TM present.

by Woburn_exile 16.09.13 11:49

Newintown wrote:
tiny wrote:I wonder how Emma Loach feels today,knowing that she willingly LIED for the mccanns,also where is Mr Amarals book on sale in England as I would like to buy a copy or two.what a silly woman.
That could be why she left the court upset as she knew she'd said the wrong things and may have damaged the case.

It only takes one witness to make a crass statement and the whole thing could fall apart as happened to me. A witness for the other side said something unintentionally (they put their foot in mouth) to my barrister and the whole case tell apart after 2 years of legal wrangling.

I'm no legal expert but surely the Loach woman is guilty of multiple prejury. She after all presented to the world the TROOF about madeleine in her documentary where cuddly lovey Kate describes the incident with the shutters. All GAs team have to do is produce the forensic file that proves that this is nonsense. Job Jobbed.

clapping

by **Jill Havern** 16.09.13 12:01

' Come off TV, Kate and Gerry, your time is up', Jon Gaunt, The Sun, Friday 2nd 2008.

Jon Gaunt: "I interviewed Emma Loach, the director of this film, on my radio show on Wednesday and she clearly illustrated where her sympathies lay when she told me that she too had left her three-year-old and five-year-old alone in a hotel room while she went off and had dinner."

by aiyoyo 16.09.13 12:04

PeterMac wrote:I suppose we should include in big letters that it is possible that EL was saying she saw it in a bookshop in another country, and obviously in a foreign language. Though it might have been helpful to the court if she had made that clear.
The way that exchange has been reported makes it capable of interpretation that she, an English woman, saw it on sale in a bookshop in England and in English.
Indeed I think the court would be entitled to think that, given the total absence of any qualifying words.

She may not have intended this. Perhaps she should be given the opportunity to return to the court and to explain, and to be cross examined.

Quoted from
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
GP - Do you know if the book was published in the UK ?
EL - says she saw it in bookshops.
Left hanging . . . but the context makes it clear that this is what people may understand. Whether they are entitled to is a matter for Isobel D.

Well, her answer may be open to interpretation eg.in that she'd seen it on sale outside UK.

But that was not the question asked of her.
The question specifically mentions UK, so either she was answering to the point, in that case she lied about it.
Or, she digressed from the question, then she should made it clear which country she saw the book on sale.

It not down to people to interpret what she means. It should just be taken she answers the question to the point unless she says otherwise.

by **PeterMac** 16.09.13 12:05

But they have all done it so often and for so long, I suspect most people are beyond caring that they have "changed their stories". (Kevin - that is code for "lying")
I think everyone just expects it now.
("What do you mean by "everyone"? Well my Lord, I met a man who told me he thought he had heard that there was someone in a pub who said . . . ")

They started on day 1, with the phone calls to the relatives and friends about the jemmied, smashed and broken shutters, and have never stopped since.
The statements don't match each other, don't even match their own subsequent statements; the book doesn't match the "documentary, nothing, but nothing, makes sense.

But one of them once said "Confusion is good "

by **PeterMac** 16.09.13 12:08

On the assumption that your clients' witness was NOT lying
You may feel inclined to interview her to discover
Which bookshop was selling the book, and
Whether it was an English publication
and then take appropriate action.

by Newintown 16.09.13 12:11

bobbin wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I've just realised that Emma Loach was the director of the (unintentionally) hilarious and revealing documentary Madeleine Was Here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439291/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3

A link to the first part for anyone who's missed this little gem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

Another quality witness to be sure!!
What I just love about these idiots is how in hell do they think we're taken in.
Re at 50 secs on the youtube above, part 1 of 5 of EL's documentary: Kate peers into the room, through a small opening in the door, SEES the twins in their cots (in the dark and behind the door) yet cannot make Maddie out, for bed-clothes? with her bed being on Kate's left, in her line of sight.
Emma Loach, you have shown yourself, firstly in your documentary to be most 'un-discerning' and now in court, to be an absolute crass own goal for Katie and Gerry.
May the truth prevail as soon as possible, because this is fast becoming a hideous train-wreck and it does Maddie such compound injustice.

Didn't Gerry say in one of his statements that he had layed Madeleine on top of the bed as it was a warm night? Talk about contradictions.

ETA: So if Madeleine had been laying on top of the bed, as Gerry said, and she HAD been abducted, then there would be no bundle of bedclothes for KM to mistake as a child in the bed as the bedding would have been flat.

by Newintown 16.09.13 12:21

PeterMac wrote:But they have all done it so often and for so long, I suspect most people are beyond caring that they have "changed their stories". (Kevin - that is code for "lying")
I think everyone just expects it now.
("What do you mean by "everyone"? Well my Lord, I met a man who told me he thought he had heard that there was someone in a pub who said . . . ")

They started on day 1, with the phone calls to the relatives and friends about the jemmied, smashed and broken shutters, and have never stopped since.
The statements don't match each other, don't even match their own subsequent statements; the book doesn't match the "documentary, nothing, but nothing, makes sense.

But one of them once said "Confusion is good "

Confusion for the public maybe, but not the PJ. yes

by ShuBob 16.09.13 12:26

I wonder if Ms Loach is frothing at the mouth at the thought that her court testimony is now available for all to read on the dastardly internet titter

by Newintown 16.09.13 12:29

ShuBob wrote:I wonder if Ms Loach is frothing at the mouth at the thought that her court testimony is now available for all to read on the dastardly internet

It will be recorded in the court papers for ever more as well.

by tasprin 16.09.13 12:29

Newintown wrote:
bobbin wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I've just realised that Emma Loach was the director of the (unintentionally) hilarious and revealing documentary Madeleine Was Here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439291/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3

A link to the first part for anyone who's missed this little gem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

Another quality witness to be sure!!
What I just love about these idiots is how in hell do they think we're taken in.
Re at 50 secs on the youtube above, part 1 of 5 of EL's documentary: Kate peers into the room, through a small opening in the door, SEES the twins in their cots (in the dark and behind the door) yet cannot make Maddie out, for bed-clothes? with her bed being on Kate's left, in her line of sight.
Emma Loach, you have shown yourself, firstly in your documentary to be most 'un-discerning' and now in court, to be an absolute crass own goal for Katie and Gerry.
May the truth prevail as soon as possible, because this is fast becoming a hideous train-wreck and it does Maddie such compound injustice.
Didn't Gerry say in one of his statements that he had layed Madeleine on top of the bed as it was a warm night? Talk about contradictions.

When you look at the photos of the bed from where Madeleine was supposedly snatched, the bedclothes are neat and almost completely flat, except for one small corner folded back. So how could she possibly mistake the bedclothes for Madeleine, even briefly?

by russiandoll 16.09.13 12:32

I have re-watched the EL documentary. Gerry telling Matt that until the Thursday HE HAD NOT LOOKED INTO THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOM.

But Gerry your wife in her account of the truth, stated unequivocally when she was making a comparison of MW LISTENING checks as being less favourable than your own, THAT YOUR GROUP WAS GOING INTO THE APARTMENTS AND NOT JUST LISTENING BUT

LQQKING.

Now, what were you looking at when you entered 5a? You could see into the kids' room from the lounge. You could from that position only see the cots.

Were you reassured of the twins' welfare from that distance? Did you at home never enter the room to check properly, for instance that they were neither too hot nor too cold, and adjust bedding accordingly?
Why, after the walk you had done to get to 5a, did you not take the seconds for the few steps it would have taken to go into the bedroom and LQQK as well as listen?

Oh and about the Smith sighting in this documentary. An actor reads part of Mr Smith's statement. Guess which part is left out? The part that must be left out if it is not to draw attention to the shots of the man carrying the child, cradled in his arms.
This flagrant altering of a signed witness statement which was given during the investigation into a major crime involving a vulnerable child is not only morally disgusting but also possibly a criminal offence.
I hope it is brought up in court because EL's credibility will be well and truly shot.
And it will bring to the attention of any UK reporter on this libel trial that this was done and the question must be asked
why was the signed statement of a witness not spoken in full by this actor and why was the position of the child altered?
clearly to suit an agenda.

by ShuBob 16.09.13 12:33

Newintown wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I wonder if Ms Loach is frothing at the mouth at the thought that her court testimony is now available for all to read on the dastardly internet
It will be recorded in the court papers for ever more as well.

And with any luck, used in a documentary with a viewership of at least 2 million in the UK big grin

by aiyoyo 16.09.13 12:36

Newintown wrote:
PeterMac wrote:

TVI - Have you seen "Madeleine was here"?
SH - did, as many people.
TVI - Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other?
SH - argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.
TVI - Why?
SH - doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.
TVI - Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
touché !

GP – Do you know the Oprah Winfrey TV program?
SH - answers no. The only person in the entire WORLD who has never heard of Oprah Winfrey ? ? ?
SO - Then why were they angry with the book?
SH - says they don't fear what the book says.
SO - Do you know if the book hampered the investigation?
SH - says she can't answer.
Quite. So why are you here ?

During this mornings session a psychologist, David Trickey was heard, he explained to the court the damage that the publication of that book would have caused to Maddie's younger siblings, Sean and Amelie, who are actually eight years old. However the defence refuted that argument since the expert only met with the children once and another time with the children's parents, all other contacts with the family were made by phone.

This morning we also heard as a witness an English lawyer who during the first 6 months of the case, between May and September of 2007, accompanied the McCann couple while he was in Portugal, however all statements advanced by this lawyer were also refuted since all effects that he witnessed took place previous to the book publication.
They need this adjournment to get back the the UK and sort out some more witnesses, I think.
Do you mean new witnesses or witnesses to be heard this week? I don't know whether they would be allowed to bring in any new witnesses at a late stage that have not already been endorsed by a lawyer and their statements put before the court to be included in the court papers, unless the process is different in Portugal.

I think the courts must have a deadline when all papers are presented to the court for a forthcoming trial, I can't remember what it was when I appeared in court, probably about 2-3 weeks at a guess.

Yes, that many nr. of days are allocated for court sessions precisely because time is allocated for nr. of witnesses already notified to Court.
They can't introduce or change witness willy nilly as it breaches procedures.

What is blatantly noticeably obvious is that none of Kate or Gerry's friends have come forward to support them. Even the paynes are conspicious by their absent.
Either they did not have close and lasting friends, or they are not believed by their friends. It seems they couldn not count on their old time friends (if they have any) to vouch for them.
You have to wonder why, as surely they must have if not plenty, then at least some, old time friends/colleagues/workmates or people in their social circle willing to stand up for them, but apparently that is not the case.

Poignantly all the 5 witnesses dragged to Court to vouch for them are merely associated to the mccanns in their professsional capacity brought about by the circumstances. None of the 5 have known or heard of the Mccanns if not for Madeleine disappearance.
Doubtless their travel and hotel costs go with saying will be been covered by the "Fighting Fund".
Maybe the pertinent question is: is the Fund paying for their time in their professional capacity?
I would imagine solicitor, psychologist, and Dave dont work for free. Film making woman may be promised exclusives to more pulp fiction making.

Who knows.
I find it so WEIRD that the only people willing to stand as witnesses for them are people who hardly know them.

These people may be naively taking things as face value without bothering to apprise themselves of the facts, and allowing themselves to be charmed by fragrant fragile kate, the damsel in distress.

Look at Myra Hindley.
She managed to charm Lord Langford off his pants that he campaigned her cause for 30 years only to be labelled a "pestilential pain" as later revealed in a letter written by Hindley.

It's probably not fair to compare a series killer with Kate, but I am just saying some women can turn on the charm when it suits their agenda.

by russiandoll 16.09.13 12:37

quote tasprin : "When you look at the photos of the bed from where Madeleine was supposedly snatched, the bedclothes are neat and almost completely flat, except for one small corner folded back. So how could she possibly mistake the bedclothes for Madeleine, even briefly? "

Very good question and one no doubt a number of detectives sitting around a table discussing the statements have asked.
My brief answer ..

She could not. She did not.

by aiyoyo 16.09.13 12:53

Newintown wrote:
tiny wrote:I wonder how Emma Loach feels today,knowing that she willingly LIED for the mccanns,also where is Mr Amarals book on sale in England as I would like to buy a copy or two.what a silly woman.
That could be why she left the court upset as she knew she'd said the wrong things and may have damaged the case.

It only takes one witness to make a crass statement and the whole thing could fall apart as happened to me. A witness for the other side said something unintentionally (they put their foot in mouth) to my barrister and the whole case fell apart after 2 years of legal wrangling.

My education guess is, she may be paid or maybe promised an exclusive for future film.
She accepted it little realising she'll be cross examined by the other parties as well as the Judge.
Obviously some of the questions were too much for her to handle. She was out of depth. It is not just a question of coming on to speak your mind then bugger off.

Two witnesses perjured themselves in the process.
The psychologist shows himself up to be a phoney testifying when he hasn't assessed the twins post the book.
Ditto the solicitor, testifying of events pre book - useless for the purpose.
SH - room for improvement between the ears, or overly naive.

by plebgate 16.09.13 13:02

SY must be aware of what is being said in this trial. Somebody is bound to send them the comments being made on the internet (maybe they already have). IMO they should re-interview the whole lot of the Tapas crew after this libel trial (whatever the verdict) because things certainly do not seem to add up re. Emma Loach doc. and statements let alone everything else that has been pointed out over the years.

by Newintown 16.09.13 13:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Newintown wrote:
tiny wrote:I wonder how Emma Loach feels today,knowing that she willingly LIED for the mccanns,also where is Mr Amarals book on sale in England as I would like to buy a copy or two.what a silly woman.
That could be why she left the court upset as she knew she'd said the wrong things and may have damaged the case.

It only takes one witness to make a crass statement and the whole thing could fall apart as happened to me. A witness for the other side said something unintentionally (they put their foot in mouth) to my barrister and the whole case fell apart after 2 years of legal wrangling.
My education guess is, she may be paid or maybe promised an exclusive for future film.
She accepted it little realising she'll be cross examined by the other parties as well as the Judge.
Obviously some of the questions were too much for her to handle. She was out of depth. It is not just a question of coming on to speak your mind then bugger off.

Two witnesses perjured themselves in the process.
The psychologist shows himself up to be a phoney testifying when he hasn't assessed the twins post the book.
Ditto the solicitor, testifying of events pre book - useless for the purpose.
SH - room for improvement between the ears, or overly naive.

As you say, she probably accepted it without thinking through the consequences and thought it would be easy peasy; however, it is quite scary standing up in a court and having questions thrown at you which you are not expecting, you really have to think hard before answering, you cannot go back an hour or two later and change your mind.

by **PeterMac** 16.09.13 13:04

aiyoyo wrote:
Poignantly all the 5 witnesses dragged to Court to vouch for them are merely associated to the mccanns in their professsional capacity brought about by the circumstances. None of the 5 have known or heard of the Mccanns if not for Madeleine disappearance.
Doubtless their travel and hotel costs go with saying will be been covered by the "Fighting Fund".
Maybe the pertinent question is: is the Fund paying for their time in their professional capacity?
I would imagine solicitor, psychologist, and Dave dont work for free. Film making woman may be promised exclusives to more pulp fiction making.
Who knows. I find it so WEIRD that the only people willing to stand as witnesses for them are people who hardly know them.

And now we know that at least 2 of the 5 "witnesses" gave evidence of what had happened BEFORE the book was released.
They are therefore not only giving hearsay evidence of what the McCanns allegedly felt, but are completely irrelevant.
A third has now been shown to have - shall we agree on - 'inadvertently misled" - the court by saying on oath that she saw the book on sale when asked specifically about the UK.
Edgar is on record as saying that JT may have seen a woman, rather than a man. And that Madeleine might be on a yacht in Australia as wall as in a Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL, for which no one has EVER searched . .

NEXT WITNESS PLEASE ! ! !
Call Baron Münchhausen
Call PINOCCHIO

Is this really the basis on which this case was brought ?