Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by sallypelt 22.09.13 10:55

Ok, here goes! I've been doing some research into the law in Portugal, and will post my findings here. However, I will comment on freedom of speech. From my findings (and I need to study these in more depth) anything that has been posted or said on the internet or in chatrooms is NOT a crime in Portugal. So, from my understanding, so far, Amaral CANNOT be prosecuted for people who have read his book etc on the internet.

But, members can make up their own mind, and interpret Portuguese law for themselves, by paying particular attention to the 2007 Journalist Statute law.

2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Portugal

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights. An independent press and judiciary and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. In September 2007 the parliament enacted a law known as the Journalist Statute. According to the European Federation of Journalists, the law will require journalists to hand over confidential information and disclose sources in criminal cases. Thus far, the Journalist Statute has not been invoked.

Internet Freedom

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chat rooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including e-mail. According to the National Statistics Institute, 41.9 percent of the population between the ages of 16 and 74 used the Internet; the rate increased to 86.9 and 90.5 percent for high school and university graduates, respectively.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

There were no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.

I will post more as and when I find it

Edited to post this link: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1278.0
Admins, please remove link if goes against Terms and Conditions. TY

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 11:10

russiandoll wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Thank you russiandoll. Who was he appearing for McCanns or Amaral? It's all rather embarrassing, he hasn't read the book or seen the documentary??  What was the point of him being there then.
As he was examined by ID then x examined by the defence, that order of q and a tells me he was a witness for the plaintiffs. Lawyers usually examine their own witnesses and then there is a x-exam and certainly in criminal cases, there is the opportunity for a a re x exam, where the first lawyer can ask more questions.

eta the above is to the best of my knowledge.
Errr....I dont think so!
Good morning, aiyoyo,
                                     You highlighted one particular part of my response, which I gave to the best of my knowledge. You seem to have pointed out an error by me without stating why you are so sure. I am not saying you are mistaken, but you clearly think I am.

I am not an expert on courtroom procedure anywhere except the UK where I have served on jury service. I certainly have never been present at a civil case.
What I note and what I think would apply in any court where a person is defending him/herself is this, be it a criminal or civil case :

   There has been an accusation of a misdeed. Various parties research to establish if this is serious and if there is a case and reason to think there can be some sort of sanction applied according to the laws of a country.
It is up to the party making the accusation to present their case and then for the defendant to defend him/herself.
Therefore the lawyer[s] acting for the accusing , harmed party present their case to the court by stating what the claim is and allowing everyone present to understand why they are in a courtroom.
They are the first to speak, so call their own witnesses, who can then be cross examined by the lawyer[s] for the defendant. There is sometimes a re-cross, where for example the prosecution ask even more questions of their own witness.

I do not see why a defence witness would be called first. ID questioned the witness first, she did not as far as I have read, cross-examine after any of the defence lawyers questioned AR or MG.
Therefore in my opinion which is just an opinion, she called her own witness to give evidence which was then cross examined by the defence.
Hence my stating that Melchior Gomes was a witness for the plaintiffs.
As you have highlighted this from my answer to candyfloss, could you please explain why you think MG was a witness for the other side, as I took the trouble to explain to Candyfloss why I gave her the answer I did. I would be grateful if you would do the same for me !

Good morning to you too,

The logic is simple.
Let's put it this way : if he was approached by Plaintiffs as witness, would he have accepted?

by susible 22.09.13 11:20

I'm not sure that you can refuse a court request as a witness, and of course if you were called as a witness to support a plaintiff that you disagreed with, it would be an excellent opportunity to "put the cat amongst the pigeons" and possibly damage their case. Not that the McCanns need any more help in damaging their case, their closest friends and relatives have already made a pretty good job of blowing the whole thing out of the water, in a case that was questionable, if not outright ridiculous in the first place.

by Guest 22.09.13 11:21

Do they have a choice if called, does anyone know? I am with russiandoll and Montclair, I think he was for the McCanns.

by Woofer 22.09.13 11:25

He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.

by Woburn_exile 22.09.13 11:38

Just to add to the comment stream without being too insulting to Philomena Just how did she manage to come out with almost exactly what GA said in his documentary before he even published it. .
Did the PJ put this to her, or is it just very close to the truth?

F M P

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 12:51

All the plaintiffs, bearing Gerry, have someone in certain professional capacity speaking for them.
Twins have one psychologist arguing for their case.
Kate has a ~~phoney psychologist~~ crisis counsellor speaking up for her.
Yet, neither of them mentioned Gerry, as if he did not need trauma counselling or assesssing.
Pike said he was hired since end 2007 (until when - 2010 or present day) by the Mccanns, presumably paid out of the Fund. So you are left wondering why was it his testimony concentrates mainly on Kate. He creates the impression he's the Mrs. personal counsellor and probably went beyond professional counselling. His regular visits to Rothley and although he said they also (likely only Kate since Gerry is working) go to his office, it would appear that he gave her personal counselling.

Someone conducting professional counselling only listens but never advise. When that border is crossed, in that when counsellor starts to advise, it becomes personal. Then the professional client-counsellor relationship has evolved to become a friend-counsellor relationship, thus no longer objective or dispassionate.

The pertinent question would whether is this friend-counsellor type assessment be valid for use for the purpose?
Surely one cant claim all sort of psychological mental or emotional condition under the sun, then merely drag out family members or friends to testify and expect to be taken seriously.

If Kate & Gerry have been visiting specialists' clinics regularly to get help for the conditions they claimed then they should get the specialists to certify their conditions or to act as witnesses. Otherwise they might as well have dragged any Tom Dick & Harry (laymen in other words) they met on the street, befriended, and who became their confidantes to Court in the same manner they wheeled layman family members and friends out for the purpose.

by gbwales 22.09.13 12:52

Montclair wrote:In this case, it is up to the McCanns to prove that they have been wronged and up until now it does not seem that they have done a very good job at it. It is all hearsay! The witnesses testimonies are mostly based on what the McCanns have told them.

And as far as I can see anything that isn't hearsay is either incorrect (deliberately or mistakenly...) or irrelevant to the claim they are pursuing.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 12:55

candyfloss wrote:Just for posterity, I have just seen this on twitter from an article in the Daily Mail........

But the McCanns' spokesman was forced to deny that Mrs McCann was suicidal after the magazine headlined the article: "Kate's mother fears she will kill herself."

Clarence Mitchell said: "It is beyond offensive to suggest Kate is suicidal. She is not.

"She is, however, a woman under immense pressure and her mother is perfectly entitled to defend her."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490317/I-dont-know-long-hold-says-Kate-McCanns-anxious-mother.html#ixzz2fc5Z5GKu

Useful for the Defence to know.

Someone is lying.

by ShuBob 22.09.13 13:01

Please does anyone know if Kate's mum testified last week? That's one witness testimony I'd like to read!

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 13:06

susible wrote:I'm not sure that you can refuse a court request as a witness, and of course if you were called as a witness to support a plaintiff that you disagreed with, it would be an excellent opportunity to "put the cat amongst the pigeons" and possibly damage their case. Not that the McCanns need any more help in damaging their case, their closest friends and relatives have already made a pretty good job of blowing the whole thing out of the water, in a case that was questionable, if not outright ridiculous in the first place.

Well, in that case, I see you've managed to derive at the answer.
That's right - if Court summons him, he's no option but to oblige.
He is there neither for the plaintiff nor the defendant.
He is there to tell the facts or truth - his reply points to exactly that.

Notice both the Portuguese Law Enforcing Officials gave evidence by video-conference, they did not attend in person.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 13:09

ShuBob wrote:Please does anyone know if Kate's mum testified last week? That's one witness testimony I'd like to read!

Not yet, probably next round.
She's not going to make much difference.
I expect she'll doze out the the same old same old drivels.

by ShuBob 22.09.13 13:12

aiyoyo wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Please does anyone know if Kate's mum testified last week? That's one witness testimony I'd like to read!
Not yet, probably next round.
She's not going to make much difference.
I expect she'll doze out the the same old same old drivels.

You never know. She might actually tell the truth as she knows it and not what she's been told to say.

by Ashwarya 22.09.13 13:17

Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.

I am also sure I read ages ago that Ribeiro had been called as a witness for the McCanns, because I remember being shocked that he would agree to such a thing. Fortunately I was interpreting the role of a witness for the plaintiff in a very naïve way, and I am now hugely pleased that he was asked to testify. I think things are going really well, and it will be nothing less than a travesty if Goncalo loses a single penny due to the judge's verdict.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 13:20

candyfloss wrote:Do they have a choice if called, does anyone know? I am with russiandoll and Montclair, I think he was for the McCanns.

Ask yourself, do you have the freedom of choice to refuse the person you are against, had you been approached by that very person?

Only the law can oblige you, I should think so.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 13:30

Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.

Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

by Woofer 22.09.13 13:35

Cribbed from UK Justice Forum

Day 1 - Witness 1 - Mrs Hubbard - Wife of Rev Hubbard, friend of McCanns since May 2007
            Witness 2 - Emma Loach - Documentary maker
            Witness 3 - Dave Edgar - Retired policeman employed by the McCanns

Day 2 - Witness 1 - David Trickey - Psychologist and specialist in child trauma.
           Witness 2 - Angus McBride - Lawyer and advisor to McCanns when back from Portugal Sept 07
           Witness 3 - Claudia Nogueira - PR expert, Lift Consulting; very good friend of KM - no details of evidence

Day 3 - Witness 1 - Alan Pike - Crisis counsellor
           Witness 2 - Melchior Gomes - Deputy Attorney General (Ret`d) and only person to sign AG Report
           Witness 3 - Alipio Ribeiro - National Director of the PJ

by Woofer 22.09.13 13:39

aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari

by lj 22.09.13 14:00

JackieL wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Thank you russiandoll. Who was he appearing for McCanns or Amaral? It's all rather embarrassing, he hasn't read the book or seen the documentary?? What was the point of him being there then.
As he was examined by ID then x examined by the defence, that order of q and a tells me he was a witness for the plaintiffs. Lawyers usually examine their own witnesses and then there is a x-exam and certainly in criminal cases, there is the opportunity for a a re x exam, where the first lawyer can ask more questions.
In that case, Duarte is really a terrible lawyer - as PeterMac says, never call a witness unless you know exactly what they're going to say!! I'm glad she did call him, but God knows why!!!

I don't know how much of her bad choices are really Kate's. It's like Kate's fantasy book. There are parts that are obvious lies you wonder how a lawyer could leave that in. I think working with Kate might be very hard. I think that when she wants something she will throw suicide tantrums and automutilating hissyfits until she gets it her way. Or she will simply do it. The choice of these witnesses is not very professional. There have been doctors involved with the couple, why not interview them?

Having said that I am concerned with this judge. Why did she let Pike comment on things he knows nothing about, like the judicial process? I do hope the defense lawyers will pay a lot of attention to that.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 14:07

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari

Woofer, you're missing the point altogether.
I dont think it was them who called the Police Officials as witnesses.

Even IF they'd suicidal wish and stupid enough to even think it, I doubt the Police Officials would accept, neither can they be dragged by the Mccanns to appear if they refused.

Logic dictates the Police Officials were summoned by the Court, as only the Court Authority can oblige them to attend.

Now, it may be that team Mccann proposed to the Court to call Police and/or Public Officials to testify, and Court duly summoned them, but I seriously doubt that is how it happened.
Can anyone imagine the Mccanns offering themselves as lambs for the slaughter?

Think about it.
Can they realistically hope to expect police and/or public officials to come on and testify in their favour' and in so doing invalidate their own works and reports?
Can any sane person see that possibly happening - the mccanns expecting police officials to stand behind their claims?

by ShuBob 22.09.13 14:15

lj wrote:
JackieL wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Thank you russiandoll. Who was he appearing for McCanns or Amaral? It's all rather embarrassing, he hasn't read the book or seen the documentary?? What was the point of him being there then.
As he was examined by ID then x examined by the defence, that order of q and a tells me he was a witness for the plaintiffs. Lawyers usually examine their own witnesses and then there is a x-exam and certainly in criminal cases, there is the opportunity for a a re x exam, where the first lawyer can ask more questions.
In that case, Duarte is really a terrible lawyer - as PeterMac says, never call a witness unless you know exactly what they're going to say!! I'm glad she did call him, but God knows why!!!
I don't know how much of her bad choices are really Kate's. It's like Kate's fantasy book. There are parts that are obvious lies you wonder how a lawyer could leave that in. I think working with Kate might be very hard. I think that when she wants something she will throw suicide tantrums and automutilating hissyfits until she gets it her way. Or she will simply do it. The choice of these witnesses is not very professional. There have been doctors involved with the couple, why not interview them?

Having said that I am concerned with this judge. Why did she let Pike comment on things he knows nothing about, like the judicial process? I do hope the defense lawyers will pay a lot of attention to that.

Looking at it another way, how would the court (and us big grin

) know the quality of witness Pike is had his testimony (or aspects of it) been disallowed including the fact he was reading notes from his iPad? I suspect (hope) the judge has allowed all the nonsense so that when she makes her judgement she can give a detailed explanation.

by Seek truth 22.09.13 14:17

lj wrote:
JackieL wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Thank you russiandoll. Who was he appearing for McCanns or Amaral? It's all rather embarrassing, he hasn't read the book or seen the documentary?? What was the point of him being there then.
As he was examined by ID then x examined by the defence, that order of q and a tells me he was a witness for the plaintiffs. Lawyers usually examine their own witnesses and then there is a x-exam and certainly in criminal cases, there is the opportunity for a a re x exam, where the first lawyer can ask more questions.
In that case, Duarte is really a terrible lawyer - as PeterMac says, never call a witness unless you know exactly what they're going to say!! I'm glad she did call him, but God knows why!!!
I don't know how much of her bad choices are really Kate's. It's like Kate's fantasy book. There are parts that are obvious lies you wonder how a lawyer could leave that in. I think working with Kate might be very hard. I think that when she wants something she will throw suicide tantrums and automutilating hissyfits until she gets it her way. Or she will simply do it. The choice of these witnesses is not very professional. There have been doctors involved with the couple, why not interview them?

Having said that I am concerned with this judge. Why did she let Pike comment on things he knows nothing about, like the judicial process? I do hope the defense lawyers will pay a lot of attention to that.

Quite depressing. The judge should be helping the police to get answers, I see no sign of this.

This is all so strange. What's going on!! Something big to be discovered or they're all earning money from it, all of them. The publics money!

by ShuBob 22.09.13 14:18

aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari
Woofer, you're missing the point altogether.
I dont think it was them who called the Police Officials as witnesses.

Even IF they'd suicidal wish and stupid enough to even think it, I doubt the Police Officials would accept, neither can they be dragged by the Mccanns to appear if they refused.

Logic dictates the Police Officials were summoned by the Court, as only the Court Authority can oblige them to attend.

Now, it may be that team Mccann proposed to the Court to call Police and/or Public Officials to testify, and Court duly summoned them, but I seriously doubt that is how it happened.
Can anyone imagine the Mccanns offering themselves as lambs for the slaughter?

Think about it.
Can they realistically hope to expect police and/or public officials to come on and testify in their favour' and in so doing invalidate their own works and reports?
Can any sane person see that possibly happening - the mccanns expecting police officials to stand behind their claims?

But equally, regardless of who summoned the witness, why would Duarte then ask him (Gomes) the questions she asked? If that isn't suicidal tactics I don't know what is!

by russiandoll 22.09.13 14:37

Well, at least we all seem to agree that it is unlikely that the officials from the Portuguese justice system were defence/ respondent witnesses, which is what I have been trying to tell the manic pros on twitter, who are whooping with delight that ha ha ha those 2, AR and MG, never read GA's book. And are all cackling like mad witches because GA's witnesses have not helped him in court.
My point was that unless Portugal is vastly different in its court procedures, there is EXAMINATION followed by CROSS-EXAMINATION.
ID was the first to q both of these men, she was not conducting a cross exam after the defence lawyer examined them initially to present the case for the defence. So they were not GA's " side ".

So it might be the court summoned them and they had to appear and ID was first up as the reason the case is before the court is due to her clients.
Makes sense.

Just my opinion, the McCanns and lawyer are trying to drive home the point in court that THE AUTHORITIES FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE DISAPPEARANCE and then GA later trashed this conclusion with his book of lies.

So ID was hoping to get these guys to say the investigation cleared them and then argue GA smeared them with untruths.
So could be useful for the McCanns.

Except neither played ball. They were not in a position to compare and contrast , because they stated that they had not read the book.

Anyway, it is not going well for the McCanns as far as I can see with all the opinion and hearsay " evidence".

by ShuBob 22.09.13 14:44

Russiandoll, like you, I think both men were the McCanns' witnesses. If they weren't, then Duarte wasn't obliged to question them just like we've seen the defense haven't cross-examined all the McCanns' witnesses.

Log in for more topics