Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by marconi 09.10.13 1:42

"I will tell all on Court" Daily Mirror

I understood she had told all on her book!

by ultimaThule 09.10.13 2:01

loopzdaloop wrote:If Kate has spun to say "LET ME CLEAR MY NAME" and "BEGS TO BE HEARD IN COURT", then ironically, it totally goes to undermine their claim about the power that books have over public opinion.

Kates book has sold more than Goncalo's and that was her "TRUE STORY".
She clearly feels that her book has not cleared her name or got her story out to enough people.
Therefore, what effect does she really think Goncalo's book may or might not have had?
If she feels that a court is a stronger place to convince the public, then they have definitly undermined themselves after the 'unhelpful' claims in the media today.

What are they playing at?

I can only conclude that they have lost the plot entirely and are in freefall.

They're playing a game that poses more danger to them now than when it first began.

At the moment K&G appear be harnessed in tandem to a large parachute but when the owner of that parachute cuts the strings, they will go into freefall and end up in a bloody mess.

by marconi 09.10.13 3:27

If I would be Kate, I would keep my mouth and wait. Lawyers are specialized in traps, she could come out of the court room in worse sheets than she is in now.

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 4:06

sallypelt wrote:Quote sharonl:

"Note: I am not at all sure that the judge is leaning towards Goncalo Amaral. It sounds as though she did not accept Paiva's answer that there were no 'new revelations' in the book. She sounded impatient. If Tavares de Almeida had only read two pages of Amaral's book, that is most unfortunate. Has this been correctly reported by the Mail?"

I read it that way too. That piece of information, as I've read it, didn't go GA's way.

Au contraire, I think the Judge has a wicked sense of humour.

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 4:17

sallypelt wrote:

Is that an admission now that it was never cleared ?

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 4:26

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not

Next few months headlines should be interesting!

After libel trial details plastered all over the front pages, lets see how BBC and MET are going to reintroduce the *A* word?

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 4:38

russiandoll wrote:

REALLY? That is if the Court deems it pertinent you speak!
You might not get the chance because you cried wolf too often.

Why didn't you answer the 48 simple questions?

Don't waste Court time and your time - just send Court a copy of your TRUTHFUL bewk!
That should suffice.

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 5:51

Seek truth wrote:Let me clear my name AND PICK UP MY £1 MILLION!

She could have cleared her name with the police years ago, plenty of opportunities!

Sy this is a joke

Perhaps she will act out her suicidal thought if she fails to collect the Million Pound!

This case is about MONEY than anything else. Their good name was long gone.

by **tigger** 09.10.13 5:57

A whole team of spin doctors would have had to work on this.

Either they'd be able to keep it low key or when that failed, due to witnesses being a little hesitant to commit perjury, it's now aimed at the brave McCanns, once more accused of crimes they did not commit.

A re-run of 2007. With extra tomato sauce.

Another thought occurred to me - has the Maddie story simply been perpetuated by the powers that be to bury bad news as and when required? As well as keeping the press happy?

GDP gap some 900%. ?

by marconi 09.10.13 6:14

tasprin wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
So they do know what Scotland Yard is up to and it is a whitewash

Please don't believe that. Smoke and mirrors, that is what it is.
If it was true, Gerry would look a lot better now, like he looked on his photos in Amsterdam, in 2011.

by marconi 09.10.13 6:34

ultimaThule wrote:
They're playing a game that poses more danger to them now than when it first began.

They can not stop anymore. The whole story went too far.They have to continue to fighting till the Yard comes up with its conclusion and eventually takes action.
They know their Titanic is sinking and no little boats around to save them, in their dark cloudy cold night.
It must be real horror.

by tiny 09.10.13 7:24

mr mrs McCann you are

                                    fooked

     Paiva says everything in Amaral's book `can be found in the case files' which have been made public

    Contrary to #McCann claim Paiva says publication of Amaral's book did not hinder the `flow of information' coming in to police

by plebgate 09.10.13 7:34

nobodythereeither wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
Here we go ......

I asked that question last night -whether this new evidence we are to see on crimewatch would be used. If it's new evidence put a stamp on a letter to Portugal is what I believe should be done.

by plebgate 09.10.13 7:43

aiyoyo wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
REALLY? That is if the Court deems it pertinent you speak!
You might not get the chance because you cried wolf too often.

Why didn't you answer the 48 simple questions?

Don't waste Court time and your time - just send Court a copy of your TRUTHFUL bewk!
That should suffice.

................................................................................................................................................

Yes if the court allows her to speak and if the judge allows her to use "evidence" uncovered in the last couple of years.   This is about what damage Mr. A. is supposed to have done to the search for Maddie and her indefinable fear, unable to eat, blah blah.

She wants Mr. A. to see what pain he has caused (reportedly).   Well what about the pain Maddie has felt, if she had been my child I would have been in the court room every day, no matter what the cops were saying about me.

The libel trial started two weeks ago, that was the time imo to show the pain that has been caused, not now after Mr. A's witnesses have spoken.

by sweetex 09.10.13 7:45

plebgate wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
Here we go ......
I asked that question last night -whether this new evidence we are to see on crimewatch would be used. If it's new evidence put a stamp on a letter to Portugal is what I believe should be done.

I jus replied on another thread but maybe it actually belongs here.

I fully agree with you. If there is any NEW evidence the case should be reopened in PT. Which to me says its totally a different case than the book TRIAL.

Any NEW evidence has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book trial and the hampering of the search, if any.

There is only ONE question to be answered in the book trial: "Was the search for Madeleine hampered". This is the only relevant question.

by plebgate 09.10.13 7:49

marconi wrote:
tasprin wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
So they do know what Scotland Yard is up to and it is a whitewash
Please don't believe that. Smoke and mirrors, that is what it is.
If it was true, Gerry would look a lot better now, like he looked on his photos in Amsterdam, in 2011.

From what is being reported about using new evidence from the new SY investigation it is hard not to believe anything other than whitewash. I really am trying not to believe it, but very difficult. Of course it could all be spin, as someone posted earlier, we will have to wait and see, but one of the cop witnesses yesterday said that SY are looking at it from an abduction only point of view?

As for the way Mr. looks, I think it is down to the libel trial not going nearly so well as was expected when the writ was issued 4 years ago.

by Smokeandmirrors 09.10.13 7:49

plebgate wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
Here we go ......
I asked that question last night -whether this new evidence we are to see on crimewatch would be used. If it's new evidence put a stamp on a letter to Portugal is what I believe should be done.

I don't think any new evidence will have any bearing whatsoever for the following resins:

a) It was not there at the point the book was written, so entirely irrelevant to the current case which was based on events 5 years ago
b) Proves that new evidence is able to come to light 5 years later despite claims search was hindered
c) IF there is new evidence, it should be used to further the search, and not dragged into the public arena to "save face"
d) If the McCanns are able to continue their public campaign it belies the notion that the book ruined their state of mind
e) She is on the side of the prosecution, and not the defence, and so why does she feel the need to defend herself?

by plebgate 09.10.13 7:52

sweetex wrote:
plebgate wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
Here we go ......
I asked that question last night -whether this new evidence we are to see on crimewatch would be used. If it's new evidence put a stamp on a letter to Portugal is what I believe should be done.
I jus replied on another thread but maybe it actually belongs here.

I fully agree with you. If there is any NEW evidence the case should be reopened in PT. Which to me says its totally a different case than the book TRIAL.

Any NEW evidence has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book trial and the hampering of the search, if any.

There is only ONE question to be answered in the book trial: "Was the search for Madeleine hampered". This is the only relevant question.

Edited to add - just seen your post smoke and mirrors and I believe you are right.

by Beanie 09.10.13 8:00

Again I feel for Sean and Amelie seeing these headlines and asking why their Mum needs to clear her name.

The McCanns are doing untold damage to their twins, someone needs to put a stop to this and fast.

by Shrike 09.10.13 8:08

russiandoll wrote:Maybe Kate will take her book with her as her aide -memoire.

Do you think this will be her choice of book to take to her desert island?

Perish the thought it gets to the point that she becomes a guest of Kirsty!

But then at least we would all be rid, 1 down just 1 to go.

And she would also have her bible to console her, and Shakespeare works that will help her to ponder the play that she has been a part of for these past 6 years.

I wonder which will be her #1 piece of music - The Platters with "The Great Pretender" maybe?

by Ribisl 09.10.13 8:10

@DailyMirror
"The mum, who has asked for permission to give evidence in the £1million libel trial against the ex-officer, hopes giving an emotional account will help her and husband Gerry win the court case."

The emotional card seems to be the only trick left in their hand. Hope GA's defence team will be able to use a clever finesse to trump it and win the rubber and the match.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.10.13 8:12

plebgate wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Sky news re Daily Express : Kate expected to use new evidence uncovered by SY to defend herself in libel case
Here we go ......
I asked that question last night -whether this new evidence we are to see on crimewatch would be used. If it's new evidence put a stamp on a letter to Portugal is what I believe should be done.

There is a very serious issue here in relation to this 'new evidence' which is apparently being brought by DCI Andy Redwod and his team to the BBC studios on Monday.

Clearly IMO the McCanns have already been briefed - maybe weeks or even possibly months ago - about this 'new evidence', by DCI Redwood. Probably in person. They obviously know well in advance exactly what will be said on the Crimewatch programme.

We don't know when the 'reconstruction' was done. There are suggestions it was done in Spain. We are not sure what form it will take, and what it will show. How long ago was it thought about, prepared, and filmed? Again, quite possibly, weeks ago.

If so, the substance of this 'new evidence' cannot be of immediate, or urgent, value. Otherwise DCI Redwood would have simply called a press conference weeks ago, held up an e-fit of a likely suspect, and invited the public to look for him (or her). No doubt the e-fit would have been on the front page of every newspaper in the country the very next day.

The purpose of a Crimewatch broadcast is presumably to engage members of the general public in the search for the perpetrators of a crime, or to search for other clues that will help the perpetrators of a crime to be identified.

It will be very interesting to see what this 'new evidence' amounts to, against the above criterion.

Surely the only possible evidence that would assist the McCanns in the court case of McCanns v Amaral is strong evidence (produced by Redwood) that there really was an abductor.

It follows that this will have to be an advance on (1) the statements of the McCanns and the 'Tapas 7' about the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 and (b) the claims of Jane Tanner. I am not aware of any other evidence in favour of the abduction of Madeleine (unless you count Martin Smith's evidence, which Dr Kate McCann does on pages 98, 328-329 and 370-372 of her book, 'madeleine') .

Therefore, if what DCI Redwood is going to say on Crimewatch is going to have any bearing at all on the case in Portugal (as the McCanns clearly believe), it will surely have to amount to evidence of the most powerful kind that there really was an abductor.

It must, surely, be akin to an 'ace up his sleeve'.

Added to that - unless the purpose of the Crimewatch programme is something altogether different, and given that it is being broadcast in the United Kingdom - it must give the viewing British public some information that will actively help them to help Redwood arrest someone.

To put it bluntly, DCI Redwood, in having planned for some time to take part in this BBC broadcast, must believe that this programme will result in one or more viewers of the Crimewatch programme contacting his team (or 'Crimestoppers') with information that will enable him to arrest someone.

If someone does that, it will have another very beneficial effect.

It will save an awful lot of time, effort and expense trawling through thousands of mobile telephone records in 31 countries during the coming months.

by Seek truth 09.10.13 8:15

marconi wrote:"I will tell all on Court" Daily Mirror

I understood she had told all on her book!

Truth of the Lie = TRUTH BASED ON POLICE FILES

Kate's book = truth based on NOT THE POLICE FILES

Which makes more sense?

by russiandoll 09.10.13 8:17

Thanks to twitter for the summary of yesterday's evidence. Once the transcript is here from Anne, it can of course be checked for accuracy. Thought I would copy it over for now just for something to go on : bold mine.

TODAY'S UPDATE FROM THE TRIAL Tuesday October 8th 2013

The day in court has ended.
A brief update:
* Isabel Duarte did not attend, the plaintiffs were represented by another lawyer from her office.
* Kate has also requested to be heard as a party.
* The judge will decide whether or not it is necessary/pertinent to hear Kate, Gerry and Gonçalo after all the witnesses have testified.

* Ricardo Paiva was heard via videolink.
He was mainly questioned about what happens to any information that the PJ received after the investigation was shelved.
That information is handled by the PJ officer who is responsible for that task.
Until late 2012, that was his task.
He would then send any relevant information to the Public Ministry, that would decide whether or not it was important enough for further investigation.

* He said that the book and the files have the same contents, as the book was based on the investigation.

* Ricardo Paiva also said that after Gonçalo's book was published, the flux of information did not go down.
The only changes happened around anniversaries of the disappearance, when it would go up.
The judge asked what were the revelations of the book.
Ricardo said that there were none.

*Tavares de Almeida was also heard via videolink.
He was asked about his participation in the investigation, which ended in late September.
There were no further questions because he said he had only read the last two pages of the book and had not seen the documentary.

* Luis Neves was the last witness before lunch.
He read some parts of the book and did not see the documentary.
He testified about the initial investigation thesis being that of an abduction, which was why his unit was involved early on.
He was present during a meeting with the parents at the British Consulate in Portimão.
That was the first time that the hypothesis of death was mentioned.

* It was the parents who first mentioned it.
They wanted Krugel to be brought over with his machine.
When the British officers saw Krugel's work and the area that he covered, they suggested the dogs. That was the start of a new angle to the investigation.

* After lunch, Manuel Catarino.
He followed the case as chief editor of Correio da Manhã.
He read both the book and the files.
The contents of book and files is the same.
He also wrote a book because the case is of public interest.
There was no difference of any kind in the reporting, before and after Gonçal Amaral's book.

* The last witness today was Moita Flores.
He read the book but did not see the documentary.
He has 18 years of experience as an investigator for the PJ, homicide division, and is a teacher in criminal investigation.
He says that all theories are valid, except for one: an abduction through that window is completely impossible.
He thinks the investigation made a fundamental mistake because it started only with the abduction theory.
The classics teach that first one must look at who had access to the apartment. Solutions to crimes are usually the most simple ones.
He was perplexed by the shelving of the investigation, as all of the contradictions between the parents and the friends had not been thoroughly investigated.

The last witness for the day, Hernâni Carvalho, did not appear in court.

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 8:26

plebgate wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
REALLY? That is if the Court deems it pertinent you speak!
You might not get the chance because you cried wolf too often.

Why didn't you answer the 48 simple questions?

Don't waste Court time and your time - just send Court a copy of your TRUTHFUL bewk!
That should suffice.

................................................................................................................................................

Yes if the court allows her to speak and if the judge allows her to use "evidence" uncovered in the last couple of years.   This is about what damage Mr. A. is supposed to have done to the search for Maddie and her indefinable fear, unable to eat, blah blah.

She wants Mr. A. to see what pain he has caused (reportedly).   Well what about the pain Maddie has felt, if she had been my child I would have been in the court room every day, no matter what the cops were saying about me.

The libel trial started two weeks ago, that was the time imo to show the pain that has been caused, not now after Mr. A's witnesses have spoken.

The judge's key word *pertinent* would suggest she'd already half made up her mind it wont be necessary for the parties to speak.

They can only take the stand to clarify for their cause.
The parties can't cross question the other side and can only ask for clarification using Judge as intermediary.
Basically there isn't anything more they can say that wasn't already lodged within their paper arguments.
Say, for example , if Kate were to introduce the Yard's latest development as reported in the paper, can anyone see the Judge allowing that without putting her in her place, as the Review has nothing to with her writs?

I'm still inclined that way that the Judge wont see the necessity to pass through the motion for the sake of it if there's nothing important to be gained in terms of added evidence from it.

On the other hand, that said, if Gerry's arrogant attitude outside court, and his willy nilly turning up expecting to be heard on the spot, were witnessed by Court, she might just allow them the platform to hang themselves. Never forget they will be speaking on Oath. This will shut them up and stop them spinning that Portuguese systems suck, the latter is guaranteed to happen if they were refused the chance to speak.