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 1 of 40 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 26.09.13 19:35

Would Operation Grange have been informed of GMs intentions (?) of testifying under oath in Lisboa tomorrow? 

Wouldn't it be very adroit of them to turn up there as well, armed with paper and pencil? 

And this, all the more so after they allegedly advised the McCs not to disrupt their activities in Portugal by turning up there? 

ShuBob, here's another one: "I so desperately wanted to go, but SY restrained me in the UK"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 26.09.13 19:37

@ShuBob wrote:
@marconi wrote:
I can't think of having Gerry as consultant cardiologist, operating me! Things are much worse now, having the Yard involving in it.
That last photo of both, on the death anniversary, was terrible.
He is destroyed.
Come on, Gerry, this will cost your health.  Tell the truth!
He just might if he takes the stand tomorrow pray 
notme    ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 26.09.13 19:48

Someone posted this on HiDeHo's facebook page copied from Gonçalo's facebook page.

Neste momento, é preciso recordar a decisão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, que deu provimento ao recurso interposto em 2010, revogando a decisão do Tribunal de 1ª instância, considerando improcedente, por não provada, a providência cautelar interposta pelo casal Mccan contra a venda do meu livro “Maddie – A Verdade da Mentira”:
“O livro ”Maddie – A Verdade da Mentira” – escrito pelo requerido Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, tem como principal motivação a defesa da sua honorabilidade pessoal e profissional…”
“ O conteúdo do livro não ofende nenhum dos direitos fundamentais dos requerentes” (casal Mccan)

Google translation:

At this point it is worth recalling the decision of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon, which upheld the appeal in 2010, revoking the decision of the Court of 1st instance, considering unfounded, not proven, the injunction filed by the couple mccan against selling my book "Maddie - the Truth of the Lie":
"The book" Maddie - The Truth of the Lie "- written by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, whose main motivation to defend his honor personal and professional ..."
"The content of the book does not infringe any of the fundamental rights of the applicants" (double McCan)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by suzyjohnson on 26.09.13 23:26

@suzyjohnson wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone know why KM used her name K HEALY in their latest charity 'hi-jack'?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

A woman often reverts to her maiden name when her marriage breaks up - not suggesting anything here of course!

It would be very interesting to know why, because Kate signed one of the creche records K Healy. 
Lobster's creche records 2/5/07 (Wed)  -
Madeleine McCann 5A - 14.45 signed K McCann 17.30 signed K. Healy
And then the Wednesday night KM slept in the children's room because she had fallen out with GM.
So, all really wasn't well on the holiday then. I think we need to take another look at Wednesday. What happened between them between 14.45 and 17.30 for a start.

I am starting a new thread with this.
I have just checked the Doctors UK Register, KM is registered under the name Kate Healy, so understandable that she could sometimes sign Healy instead of McCann I suppose. There are also 4 doctors named Kate (or variations of Kate) McCann, none of whom appear to be Kate Healy.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by marconi on 27.09.13 1:39

@Portia wrote:Would Operation Grange have been informed of GMs intentions (?) of testifying under oath in Lisboa tomorrow? 

Wouldn't it be very adroit of them to turn up there as well, armed with paper and pencil? 

And this, all the more so after they allegedly advised the McCs not to disrupt their activities in Portugal by turning up there? 

ShuBob, here's another one: "I so desperately wanted to go, but SY restrained me in the UK"
At this moment, the McCanns have (still) nothing to do with the Yard.
They are parents who lost their daughter, nothing more or less.

marconi

Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 27.09.13 9:33

@marconi wrote:
@Portia wrote:Would Operation Grange have been informed of GMs intentions (?) of testifying under oath in Lisboa tomorrow? 

Wouldn't it be very adroit of them to turn up there as well, armed with paper and pencil? 

And this, all the more so after they allegedly advised the McCs not to disrupt their activities in Portugal by turning up there? 

ShuBob, here's another one: "I so desperately wanted to go, but SY restrained me in the UK"
At this moment, the McCanns have (still) nothing to do with the Yard.
They are parents who lost their daughter, nothing more or less.
I think a SY representative has been at the trial since day one.

All those persons of interest responding to questions while under oath is far too good an opportunity to miss.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 27.09.13 9:39

Thanks a zillion to John and Anne.
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 4 Witness No 2
The testimony as it happened...
(20.09.2013, 3:30pm) Maria Isabel Stilwell is a writer and the editor of Destak, the first free daily newspaper in Portugal. She says she interviewed Kate McCann in May 2011 when she launched the Portuguese translation of the book "Madeleine". She only knows Gonçalo Amaral by reputation and has never had any dealings with any of the other defendants. The witness is asked about libel judgements she is or has been part of. She answers that she presently has no process with Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge asks if the witness has read Gonçalo Amaral's book.
IS says she has.
The Judge asks whether IS has watched his documentary.
IS says "yes".
The Judge asks whether the witness' public controversial position concerning Gonçalo Amaral will influence her testimony.
IS says her conscience tells her "no", but then adds she hopes it will not.
1) The McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.
ID - Are you a writer?
IS says "yes".
ID - Are you familiar with all the files in this case?
IS says she is aware of the contents of the Attorney General’s Final Report and adds that she wrote about it.
ID - What was your job then?
IS says she was the editor of Destak. She adds that the book campaign was massive.
The Judge overrules the comment as off topic for now.
ID - What was the effect of the Amaral book on the public?
IS – Any person who announces he/she will tell people all the truth is very successful.
ID - About the audience share of the documentary, how did you obtain that data?
IS doesn't know but thinks Destak may have found the information online.
ID - It had over 2 million viewers! Is that normal?
IS apologises for being trivial but draws a parallel to a major football competition.
ID - Did the attention of the media and the people diminish after the publication of the book?
IS believes so. She says the issue which had most focus was whether Madeleine was alive or dead. She refers to people in Portugal who believe that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people. People think that "criminals are always different from us and since the McCanns aren't like us, they are widely considered cold and uncaring."
Dr Santos de Oliveira, lawyer for Gonçalo Amaral listening to this exchange has become increasingly exasperated, reacts saying that it is nothing to do with his client. ID's assistant also reacts vehemently. The judge tells them to stop immediately.
SO dictates the court clerk a protest saying that the witness exhibits a hostile demeanour towards his client and asks that her statement not be admitted by the Court. ID obviously protests.
The Judge cites an Article from Chapter 6, section I of the CPC which can preclude a witness from testifying. She adds that SO presented none of these arguments. Therefore nothing prevents IS from testifying. But the Judge requests that the questions be more objective.
ID - Did the attention of the public and the media decrease after the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary?
IS says she "has a feeling" it did.
ID - Are there numbers, notes supporting this?
IS says that as a newspaper editor she knows when an issue is important. She resumes her narrative about beliefs that bad things happen to bad people and observes that everything (in the media) tended to make the McCann couple more distant than they were. When finally the book was published, the issue appeared to be resolved and closed.
ID - The Maddie case has been deeply and amply treated, there have been many other books...
IS interrupts objecting she read none of these books. She thinks they're not of much concern and adds that none of them has the credibility or impact of a book written by an ex-inspector who was initially in charge of the case.
ID asks if she knows that former PJ inspector Moita Flores commented on the Maddie case and the book on TV.
IS knows that the book was commented on TV, on the news. She remembers that MF praised Gonçalo Amaral and she adds that a child can be missing without the parents being guilty. She remembers the title "PJ inspector agrees with homicide". She wrote on the providencia cautelar (the Injunction) because the people imagined that the issue was to examine whether the parents were guilty or not, she wanted to speak on freedom of expression versus the right to a good name.
She resumes her narrative about newspapers which publish anything just for a story, people who accept anything as the truth, etc.
ID asks whether the facts mentioned in the book and the documentary were facts established in the Final Report.
IS thinks they're not, otherwise the parents would have be tried. She says that none of the allegations were proved. She says it is typical Portuguese provincialism to believe the opposite of what a Final Report says.
ID - Were the facts mentioned by Gonçalo Amaral ascertained?
IS thinks "no". The Final Report says there is no proof. She adds that it is not legitimate to speak of freedom of expression without limits.
ID - asks whether the witness speaks of a paragraph in the book or of the insinuations in the conclusions.
The Judge overrules, she requires more precision.
ID - says she refers to the paragraph containing the words, “fraud or abuse of trust...” ("burla ou
abuso de...")
During a moment of relaxation at one of these meetings, I did a side step or I might have been inopportune and rather undiplomatic. Worried with the possibility that the McCann couple were somehow involved in their daughter's disappearance and reflecting about the kind of crime they might have committed, something occurred to me. If, really, any type of responsibility of the McCann couple was confirmed, then the fund set up to finance the search for Madeleine that had reached nearly €3 million could be a crime of fraud or abuse of trust. This question was debated and, in fact, with such premises the crimes of qualified fraud or abuse of trust could exist, but Portugal would have no jurisdiction to investigate and judge it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realised a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that left them rather reluctant.
IS interrupts and says she didn't read any reference to that fact in the Final Report.
SO objects that this isn't a fact and the Judge concurs.
ID - asks how she can explain the effect of...
IS interrupts and says that whoever reads it sees all the pieces fall into place, the theory seems genuine, it doesn't leave room for doubt. She says it is written from the perspective of a victim.
The Judge again overrules...
IS interrupts saying it's her reading of the book. She adds that if it was true the McCanns would be in jail.
2) Defence lawyers.
a) TVI lawyers’ questions.
TVI - You're not sure about the over 2 millions of audience share?
IS says that at the time she thinks an article was written on this but it's easy to check.
She makes a gesture towards her bag but stops as nobody reacts.
TVI - Are you speaking as a journalist?
IS says "yes".
TVI - asks a conclusive question about freedom of expression versus good name.
The Judge again overrules.
IS resumes her narrative criticising the documentary where the group is shown drinking and a little girl left alone without any alternative point of view. How could parents agree with fifty minutes of that? She says that after 33 years of professional work she's allowed to value judgements.
TVI - wants to know if the witness has evidence comparisons on the topic of decreasing interest.
IS says she has.
b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions
VC - Do you remember when the Final Report was released?
IS thinks it was in June 2008.
VC reminds her that the Final Report states that the definition of the crime was not established from the available evidence.
IS says she didn't read that.
The Judge intervenes and points out that the case was shelved for lack of evidence.
VC asks whether IS remembers the conclusions of Gonçalo Amaral book and starts to quote an extract...
The results my team and I have arrived at are the following:-
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of 3rd May 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body;
4. The death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. There are clues about the parents’ negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
VC - asks in what way those are facts or conclusions.
IS starts to claim vehemently and loudly that Gonçalo Amaral had no right to, he has an obsession... She mentions the Intermediate Report that he signed (10th September by Tavares de Almeida). She insists that it is worse than the book. She says the book is very well written, easy to read.
VC - Are the facts of the criminal investigation the same as close expressed in the book? If the conclusions...
IS again interrupts, but not to answer. She speaks with a great volubility which renders her speech difficult to understand. She speaks of the newspaper Correio da Manhã and of delirious theories of conspiracy.
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP - asks since when did IS commence working in journalism.
IS says she started in 1981 and starts listing everything she did in a sarcastic manner.
The Judge intervenes to remind the witness this is a judgement and not to be sarcastic by entering into such minute detail.
GP - was the decrease of news related to the fact it was a book?
IS answers it's obvious that news may emerge when, for example, there's a judgement. The feeling is that people think that what happened is already known.
GP - but...
IS interrupts GP again saying that when there are doubts, people speak a lot. She starts describing how a journalist works.
GP - asks if someone was in charge of marketing of the book.
IS says that marketing actions, to-day, can't be bypassed. She resumes a narrative about the marketing of books, including books for children, cooking, novels, etc.
GP - mentions the three other books written on the case and asks about their marketing.
IS says she didn't read them.
GP – Do you know how many copies the Correio da Manha sells?
IS knows, but asks "what has that got to do with the issue?"
The Judge overrules the witness's question and observes the witness is continuously attempting to give meaning to what she says. IS interrupts the Judge and protests. The Judge concludes she can't help it.
GP – In your editorials you mentioned the position of Gonçalo Amaral...
IS again interrupts saying there are two kinds of things in a newspaper, facts and articles of opinion.
GP – Didn't you say your objective was to clarify things in order to inform the public?
IS answers that from the beginning, in May 2007, she claimed she would be objective and wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the parents, known to be the initial suspects in this kind of case.
GP reminds her that the book was published on the 24th July while the Final Report was released on the 21st July. She wants to know if GA could be aware of the Final Report's conclusions.
The Judge overrules.
d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions
SO - Are your opinions only based on news?
IS says "not only". She mentions TV programs, books.
SO - Have you read all the Final Report?
IS says "no".
SO – Are you aware that the Final Report indicates the child to be most likely dead?
IS says she is.
SO – Since this hypothesis exists in the Final Report, the book...
IS interrupts again saying the fact of death doesn't mean that the parents are guilty.
The Judge – The Final report doesn't say the homicide is due to the parents.
She reads this part from the Report:
No respeitante aos outros crimes indiciados não passam disso mesmo e pese embora se nos afigurar não ser de descartar, dado o seu elevado grau de probabilidade, a verificação dum homicídio, tal não pode passar de mera suposição por carência de elementos de sustentação nos autos.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
(Astro translation).
SO - But the book doesn't say that the homicide was due to the parents. If the book doesn't say anything else that what's in the...
IS interrupts, but in turn is immediately interrupted by the Judge.
Judge: Let me do this part!
Evidence ends.
End of day 4.


Boy, oh boy.....a hostile witness.....very combative!  
I dont understand why ID mentioned the fraud fund - ODD!

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 plebgate on 27.09.13 9:57

Speaking loudly, interupting, questioning the defence lawyers, interupting the judge, judge having to tell her not to be sarcastic. ha ha ha.

Sounds like she got in a right old tizz.: Mr Mrs 




plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 27.09.13 10:04

Wow ...just wow.wow

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by tiny on 27.09.13 10:15

The Judge intervenes and points out that the case was shelved for lack of evidence.


  so the mccanns were not cleared as some would have us believe

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ShuBob on 27.09.13 10:18

You have to ask: how is it that the McCanns tend to attract rather odd characters daft 

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 27.09.13 10:22

@ShuBob wrote:You have to ask: how is it that the McCanns tend to attract rather odd characters daft 
So you think she's barking!

Just wait for Marinho Pinto.......

This prat will eclipse her......

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 tiny on 27.09.13 10:23

@aiyoyo wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:You have to ask: how is it that the McCanns tend to attract rather odd characters daft 
So you think she's barking!

Just wait for Marinho Pinto.......

This prat will eclipse her......
big grin big grin big grin big grin big grin

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jeanmonroe on 27.09.13 10:27

IS interrupts again saying the fact of death doesn't mean that the parents are guilty.
________________________________________

Brilliant!

SAYING "the FACT OF DEATH dosen't mean........"

Oh dear!
________________________________________________

Gerry McCann in Lisbon 2010.

"there's no evidence to implicate US in her DEATH"
_________________________________________________

So, i take it that Madeleine is now considered dead by journalists AND the parents.

After all IS has said it's a FACT, hasn't she?

How does she know THAT "fact"?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by pennylane on 27.09.13 10:29

@ShuBob wrote:You have to ask: how is it that the McCanns tend to attract rather odd characters daft 
Team McCann is a brainwashing cult, whose members have lost their sense of perspective! yes

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 aiyoyo on 27.09.13 10:30

ID - What was the effect of the Amaral book on the public?
IS – Any person who announces he/she will tell people all the truth is very successful.
By that logic Kate is successful too isn't it?

Oh sllly me, she wrote only a version of the Truth, not the WHOLE Truth.
That's why she failed, to convince people.
She has only herself to blame surely if people did not believe her since she could have told people ALL the truth.

This Isabel (yes another one, three isabel in total) is a firecracker but got doused a few times...

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 jeanmonroe on 27.09.13 10:32

SO - Have you read all the Final Report?

IS says "no".
__________________________________

No comment needed!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jeanmonroe on 27.09.13 10:39

GP - was the decrease of news related to the fact it was a book?
IS answers it's obvious that news may emerge when, for example, there's a judgement. The feeling is that people think that what happened is already known.
______________________________________________________

"it's obvious" to whom?

"for example, there's a judgement."

"may emerge, could emerge, might emerge"

Well Mrs, there was no judgement in this case was there?
___________________________________________________________

Can't wait for Gerry to "speak with a great VOLUBILITY which renders his speech difficult to understand."

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 27.09.13 10:41

ID - Did the attention of the media and the people diminish after the publication of the book?

IS believes so. She says the issue which had most focus was whether Madeleine was alive or dead. She refers to people in Portugal who believe that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people. People think that "criminals are always different from us and since the McCanns aren't like us, they are widely considered cold and uncaring."

Dr Santos de Oliveira, lawyer for Gonçalo Amaral listening to this exchange has become increasingly exasperated, reacts saying that it is nothing to do with his client. ID's assistant also reacts vehemently. The judge tells them to stop immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good grief, that nincompoop must like to listening to her own voice .....drooling on and on...
If people's opinion was that way inclined, isn't that exactly why people are skeptical of the Mccanns pulp fiction.

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 jeanmonroe on 27.09.13 10:48

IS interrupts again saying "the fact of death doesn't mean that the parents are guilty".
_________________________________________________

McCanns are going to have to sue IS because she is definitely hampering the 'search' because she has stated that death, in this case, is a FACT!

And people won't 'search' for a dead person, will they?
_____________________________________________

IS 'evidence' will keep psychologist witness DT 'busy' for YEARS!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ShuBob on 27.09.13 11:01

ID - asks how she can explain the effect of...
IS interrupts and says that whoever reads it sees all the pieces fall into place, the theory seems genuine, it doesn't leave room for doubt. She says it is written from the perspective of a victim.
You can tell the McCanns witnesses are going against their natural instinct NOT to believe Amaral's conclusions big grin 

They've done more publicity for Amaral's book than I remember the man himself doing titter 

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 27.09.13 11:13

Poe wrote:Wow ...just wow.wow
Yes WOW, death and homicide were mentioned quite a number of times by this witness.

The abduction word was never mentioned, NOT even ONCE....

And she's there to argue for the Mccanns case!

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 plebgate on 27.09.13 11:18

@aiyoyo wrote:
Poe wrote:Wow ...just wow.wow
Yes WOW, death and homicide were mentioned quite a number of times by this witness.

The abduction word was never mentioned, NOT even ONCE....

And she's there to argue for the Mccanns case!

high5 

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 27.09.13 11:32

deleted
just saw that postponement of trial is being discussed in another thread.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by HiDeHo on 27.09.13 11:37










HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2309
Reputation : 501
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 40 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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