The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Page 39 of 40 Previous  1 ... 21 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 16.09.13 14:13

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:St Clarence maybe? The patron saint of prisoners - honestly! 

He used to be at any rate but now the poor old soul seems to have been whooshed.
Come to think of it, why did they not ask Pinky to be their witness?

Without a shadown of doubt, he's their closest ally and stauchest supporter, who happens to work with them closely from the GET GO.
Surely, of all people, he more than anyone else qualifies to speak for the Mccanns; after all he's been living in their pockets, at their beck and call 24/7.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 16.09.13 14:14

@Newintown wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@plebgate wrote: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.

This trial, be it the process or verdict, it has nothing to do with Grange or Grange investigation.

I hope the defendant's legal team in their closing summary points out the witnesses lies.
It shouldn't be difficult for the Book Publisher,being part of the defend party, to prove whether or not Emma Loach lied.

Maybe it might be good if Defence Team can find out about the credibility of Dave Edgar's claim that he worked with Police Officers.
If he's proven to have lied, then Grange might need to know why he lied.

Ultimately it would be good if Team Amaral were able to shoot down the credibility of the witnesses.
If they were proven to have lied then everything they said can be binned .

No doubt that is one thing that GA's lawyer will be looking into so that they can disprove his statement when GA takes the stand and shoot his statement down in flames.
I'm sure I have read somewhere that GA is not taking the stand.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Some thoughts for Emma Loach.

Post by PeterMac on 16.09.13 14:15

“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar”
Abraham Lincoln

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
Mark Twain

“I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is.”
Nancy Farmer, The House of the Scorpion
And for any other witnesses who may be lined up in the wings, desperately trying to learn their lines

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 16.09.13 14:18

@Penfold wrote:I hate to keep quoting the book again, but Kate says that she thanks God that Emma Loach walked into her life. 

Care to rethink that one Kate?
Would this be the God she spoke to in her private space when she'd key to the Church ?

Why did she not ask God to lead her to Madeleine instead? Why ask God to send her a film-maker?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Woofer on 16.09.13 14:18

@plebgate wrote:You know what I can't understand is why these witnesses do not appear to have asked them - why aren't you going in the witness box?

I never understood why they aren`t going in the witness box.  I can understand them not going in the witness box to merely repeat what`s in the Petition, but surely these assertions need to be questioned by the Defence in the form of a cross examination.  One can`t just go into court, make assertions and not be questioned on them.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by pennylane on 16.09.13 14:20

@aiyoyo wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:St Clarence maybe? The patron saint of prisoners - honestly! 

He used to be at any rate but now the poor old soul seems to have been whooshed.
Come to think of it, why did they not ask Pinky to be their witness?

Without a shadown of doubt, he's their closest ally and stauchest supporter, who happens to work with them closely from the GET GO.
Surely, of all people, he more than anyone else qualifies to speak for the Mccanns; after all he's been living in their pockets, at their beck and call 24/7.
Pinky knows when its time to run for the hills!  sarcastic

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by PeterMac on 16.09.13 14:20

@aiyoyo wrote:
Come to think of it, why did they not ask Pinky to be their witness?
Without a shadown of doubt, he's their closest ally and stauchest supporter, who happens to work with them closely from the GET GO.
Surely, of all people, he more than anyone else qualifies to speak for the Mccanns; after all he's been living in their pockets, at their beck and call 24/7.
He is also the one who has told the most provable lies throughout the last 7 years, who has dropped them in it again and again
Dead but not by their hands, Murder, Leh, no watches, no entry by the window, no funds for legal expenses, - - - the list of his gaffs and lies is a long one.
He would be a total disaster, and the Mccanns know it.

They didn't realise quite how disastrous Mother Hubbard and EL were going to be.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Newintown on 16.09.13 14:25

candyfloss wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@plebgate wrote: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.

This trial, be it the process or verdict, it has nothing to do with Grange or Grange investigation.

I hope the defendant's legal team in their closing summary points out the witnesses lies.
It shouldn't be difficult for the Book Publisher,being part of the defend party, to prove whether or not Emma Loach lied.

Maybe it might be good if Defence Team can find out about the credibility of Dave Edgar's claim that he worked with Police Officers.
If he's proven to have lied, then Grange might need to know why he lied.

Ultimately it would be good if Team Amaral were able to shoot down the credibility of the witnesses.
If they were proven to have lied then everything they said can be binned .

No doubt that is one thing that GA's lawyer will be looking into so that they can disprove his statement when GA takes the stand and shoot his statement down in flames.
I'm sure I have read somewhere that GA is not taking the stand.
Yes, forgot that, no doubt GA's lawyer will be speaking on his behalf when summing up, if he gets the chance.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 16.09.13 14:29

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:Day1, 2nd witness's transcript by Mrs Guedes can be found here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Just as I thought, she was making it up as it suits her.
When asked how did she know about the audience of 2 millions? Has she got special access to the data, she replied "NO".

She also said: she saw the Amaral's book in UK bookshops! big grin big grin 

GP - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?
EL - says she saw it in bookshops.
It's a pity the cross examiner did not follow up on this.  Wish he'd asked her -- in which region, in which bookshop, and in what language ?

She's another gem......
Boy, team mccann must have been glad of the abrupt adjournment to recoup the damage.


Perhaps she saw the book in this bookshop? titter

"MC" - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The  people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation."
That picture of the book in Waterstone's is on my blog http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/ (which is "the first thing that appears on the internet") so I wonder if that's where she thinks she's seen the book in the bookshops? rotflrotfl
They can't claim Amaral's book damages their health since it is not available in UK.
The UK populations have been reading Kate's version in her bewk widely and readily available throughout UK.
If people are expected to believe everything they read, then Kate's bewk should made an impact with the people.
So what's her problem? No problem is it? She lives in UK, the UK media and press totally under control by their spinmaster that only their versions of story are allowed in to see the daylight.
By the large the UK public have never heard about Amaral's book if not for reports covering the trial.
Even so it is not available in English.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 16.09.13 14:30

@Newintown wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Penfold wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:

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.  
 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.


We can't have people, who knew Kate years before Madeleine went missing, being asked if Kate is, or ever has suffered from depression. They would have to tell the truth. Maybe this is the reason that the McCann's have called on those who didn't know them before Madeleine went missing. It  is all falling into place.
Repeating what K  said in that book -" I don't have the slightest doubt that if ever we ask friends or relations to do something for us, or need them with us, they will be there like a shot".
So could it be Kate didnt ask any of these reliable friends or relations to act as Witnesses, but instead had to ask strangers?  Credible?
What about neighbours who they must have known for many years, parents of the friends of the twins and Madeleine from nursery, work colleagues from the hospital where GM works who they must have socialised with on many occasions, work colleagues from the GP practice where KM worked? Friends from university or the 5 year medical degree course KM took, so many people she had contact with over the years but not one as a witness.

One of her claims against GA, is that she is suffering from depression, yet has not brought in an official representative so far to confirm that.  If she has been suffering for some years after GA's book was published surely it would all be on record with the help and advice she'd been given.
I don't know where my text disappeared to, but I will try again Mrs  Maybe the reason that Kate McCann isn't calling on those who knew her BEFORE Madeleine went missing, is because she did suffer from depression, and if these people are asked if Kate is or ever has, suffered from depression, they would have to tell the truth, and we all know that word truth isn't in the McCann's vocabulary.

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by PeterMac on 16.09.13 14:33

And as for Guardian angels.This is from my favourite play
Faustus;    Tell me, what is that Lucifer, thy Lord?
Mephistophilis:     Arch-regent and commander of all spirits.
Faustus;      Was not that Lucifer an angel once?
Mephistophilis:    Yes, Faustus, and most dearly loved of God.
Faustus:    How comes it then that he is Prince of Devils?
Mephistophilis:     O, by aspiring pride and insolence,
For which God threw him from the face of heaven.
Faustus:     And what are you that live with Lucifer?
Mephistophilis;     Unhappy spirits that live with Lucifer,
Conspired against our God with Lucifer,
And are for ever damned with Lucifer.
Faustus:     Where are you damned?
Mephistophilis:  --In hell.
Faustus:    How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephistophilis;    Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Think'st thou that I that saw the face of God,
And tasted the eternal joys of heaven
Am not tormented with ten thousand hells,
In being deprived of everlasting bliss?
I do not envy them.  I think they are in a living Hell of their own making, damned for the very sin of "aspiring pride and insolence".
Never once have they shown humility.
Even the act of gross negligence towards their three children which led - assuming it did - to the loss of one, was justified by reference to some external authority.  
How much Pride and Insolence can one man display before he falls ?
I do not envy them their position.
They have it in their power to release themselves from it in an instant.
As do all the others who know, or suspect the truth.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by tasprin on 16.09.13 14:35

I'd like to know whether Dave Edgar's claim, that he worked with Portuguese for several years after the case was shelved, will be pursued.

I'd also like to know if Emma Loach's claim, that she saw Amaral's book on sale in a UK bookshops, will be pursued. How can she possibly be considered a credible witness when her answer is blatantly untrue? Given that the lawyer specifically asked her if the book was sold in the UK, how will she explain this one?

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GUERRA & PAZ - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EMMA LOACH - says she saw it in bookshops


tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Newintown on 16.09.13 14:36

@Woofer wrote:
@plebgate wrote:You know what I can't understand is why these witnesses do not appear to have asked them - why aren't you going in the witness box?

I never understood why they aren`t going in the witness box.  I can understand them not going in the witness box to merely repeat what`s in the Petition, but surely these assertions need to be questioned by the Defence in the form of a cross examination.  One can`t just go into court, make assertions and not be questioned on them.
Good thinking plebgate, how obvious that nobody else picked up on that.  There must be something that the McCanns have over these people that can make someone stand up in court for people you barely know; were they overwhelmed by the McCanns media coverage and the fact that the McCanns are now seen as "super celebrities" mixing with all and sundry; or were they overwhelmed by the £millions in the "not" find Madeleine Fund which has accrued £millions but unbeknown to these faithful witnesses is now depleted because of all the vicious court cases taken out by the McCanns, and they're pay off will be minimal.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 16.09.13 14:45

Removed because posted twice

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 16.09.13 14:45


sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 16.09.13 15:00

@tasprin wrote:I'd like to know whether Dave Edgar's claim, that he worked with Portuguese for several years after the case was shelved, will be pursued.

I'd also like to know if Emma Loach's claim, that she saw Amaral's book on sale in a UK bookshops, will be pursued. How can she possibly be considered a credible witness when her answer is blatantly untrue? Given that the lawyer specifically asked her about the UK how will she explain this one?

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GUERRA & PAZ - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EMMA LOACH - says she saw it in bookshops

If they pursue it, they give her a chance to backtrack, "Oh I might have been mistaken ...I might have seen it while abroad ...blah de blah blah".

As her testimony stands, she saw the book for sale in the UK. Clear and unambiguous, 100%.

If the defense case later proves that the book was never sold in the UK, Emma Loach's credibility is blown out of the water.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Newintown on 16.09.13 15:07

Poe wrote:
@tasprin wrote:I'd like to know whether Dave Edgar's claim, that he worked with Portuguese for several years after the case was shelved, will be pursued.

I'd also like to know if Emma Loach's claim, that she saw Amaral's book on sale in a UK bookshops, will be pursued. How can she possibly be considered a credible witness when her answer is blatantly untrue? Given that the lawyer specifically asked her about the UK how will she explain this one?

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GUERRA & PAZ - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EMMA LOACH - says she saw it in bookshops

If they pursue it, they give her a chance to backtrack, "Oh I might have been mistaken ...I might have seen it while abroad ...blah de blah blah".

As her testimony stands, she saw the book for sale in the UK. Clear and unambiguous, 100%.

If the defense case later proves that the book was never sold in the UK, Emma Loach's credibility is blown out of the water.
I doubt very much you can backtrack on a statement that is made in court, that's why you have to be so careful when answering any questions from a judge or lawyer.  As soon as you say your piece, that has to be taken as gospel and is recorded for ever more, otherwise all court cases would be thrown into dissaray if people started changing their evidence an hour or two or a day or two after their statements were made.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by PeterMac on 16.09.13 15:25

Are they doing this deliberately ?  Do they have a death wish ?  Or is it mere crass incompetence on the part of ID ?
We saw in the TB trial that their star witness tried to sneak something past the Judge, but was not successful, and had to admit that there was no evidence for what she had tried to get entered into the record.
Here one of their star "witnesses" - who seems not to be a witness in any conventional meaning of the term -, tried to sneak something under the wire, and has been caught out.
Two other "witnesses" have tried to sneak thinks past, and have also been caught out when challenged about dates, numbers of occasions, and so forth.
You would think they would have been better selected, (or better briefed !)

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by russiandoll on 16.09.13 15:39

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GUERRA & PAZ - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EMMA LOACH - says she saw it in bookshops


 If this is accurate and EL did not elaborate on this statement, if this brief answer was all, then from the context it has to be understood that she is replying to a very clear and simple question , regarding the book's availability in the UK.

This is not a sole instance. EL had an exchange where she said that she did not know anything about its availability on the internet, then said that the book was damaging because it was the first thing you saw when you looked on the internet.
 
 You couldn't make it up could you

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Newintown on 16.09.13 15:39

@PeterMac wrote:Are they doing this deliberately ?  Do they have a death wish ?  Or is it mere crass incompetence on the part of ID ?
We saw in the TB trial that their star witness tried to sneak something past the Judge, but was not successful, and had to admit that there was no evidence for what she had tried to get entered into the record.
Here one of their star "witnesses" - who seems not to be a witness in any conventional meaning of the term -, tried to sneak something under the wire, and has been caught out.
Two other "witnesses" have tried to sneak thinks past, and have also been caught out when challenged about dates, numbers of occasions, and so forth.
You would think they would have been better selected, (or better briefed !)
I would think PeterMac that the McCanns were trying to come to a cash settlement with GA up to the last possible minute before the cut off limit before the court case and as GA said "no" the McCanns were desperate to find anyone who would act as witnesses, as they thought GA was going to cave in.

I'm not sure who the witnesses you are referring to are, but the ones who have been brought in to testify for the McCanns have done a rubbish job so far (scraping the bottom of the barrel comes to mind).

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 16.09.13 15:58

@PeterMac wrote:Are they doing this deliberately ?  Do they have a death wish ?  Or is it mere crass incompetence on the part of ID ?
We saw in the TB trial that their star witness tried to sneak something past the Judge, but was not successful, and had to admit that there was no evidence for what she had tried to get entered into the record.
Here one of their star "witnesses" - who seems not to be a witness in any conventional meaning of the term -, tried to sneak something under the wire, and has been caught out.
Two other "witnesses" have tried to sneak thinks past, and have also been caught out when challenged about dates, numbers of occasions, and so forth.
You would think they would have been better selected, (or better briefed !)
Maybe these are the best of the best.

I mean, would you agree to step into a witness box and lie, on behalf of a third party, under oath?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jeanmonroe on 16.09.13 16:12

Poe wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Are they doing this deliberately ?  Do they have a death wish ?  Or is it mere crass incompetence on the part of ID ?
We saw in the TB trial that their star witness tried to sneak something past the Judge, but was not successful, and had to admit that there was no evidence for what she had tried to get entered into the record.
Here one of their star "witnesses" - who seems not to be a witness in any conventional meaning of the term -, tried to sneak something under the wire, and has been caught out.
Two other "witnesses" have tried to sneak thinks past, and have also been caught out when challenged about dates, numbers of occasions, and so forth.
You would think they would have been better selected, (or better briefed !)
Maybe these are the best of the best.

I mean, would you agree to step into a witness box and lie, on behalf of a third party, under oath?
And THAT, imo, is WHY not a single one of their 'so into' 'T7 friends' hasn't volunteered to ride to their rescue.

I wouldn't expect JT/R'OB, MO/RO, or even the fragrant Fiona and Dave to be on the next plane over, THEY all have far to much to lose, unless the McS 'call their bluff' with 'something' THEY might let 'slip out'

If any of the T7 DO turn up NOW, imo, they will have been got at.

Only my personal THEORY, you'll understand.


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by tasprin on 16.09.13 16:15

Another thing that bothers me is lawyer Isabel Duarte's comments to the media outside the courtroom. She made an accusation that GA had hidden the profits from his book and the money could not be found. Although I don't know much about the law, I know the courts froze his assets and so this strikes me as an accusation of criminality. She clearly made this comment for the benefit of the press, no doubt being fully aware it would be repeated in media reports. The allegation was extremely prejudicial to GA, coming as it did on the first day of the trial, and if there was any basis to it why didn't she put it before the court.
It's not the first time Duarte has tried to pull an allegation of criminality against GA. During the 2010 hearing she lodged a criminal complaint, which was subsequently thrown out, alleging he'd broken judicial secrecy laws - rich indeed coming from team McCann

tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by PeterMac on 16.09.13 16:18

@tasprin wrote:. . . rich indeed coming from team McCann
Don't ever forget that Team McCann - through Carter-Ruck - used evidence obtained by clear and undisputed criminal activity in their case against TB.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by MRNOODLES on 16.09.13 16:39

@sallypelt 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.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

Another quality witness to be sure!!
Listening to the Youtube video, where Kate said she was closing the door, then it "slammed". She opened to door again, TO CHECK ON THE CHILDREN!!! Well, wth was she checking on the first time before the door "slammed"?

It's also difficult to believe, that as the door was already open it decided to slam shut as soon as she put her hand on the handle.

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 39 of 40 Previous  1 ... 21 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum