LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Portuguese Police Investigation :: McCanns v Dr Gonçalo Amaral + ECHR
Page 23 of 40 • Share
Page 23 of 40 • 1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31 ... 40
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
'Misleading' that's something to be explored. Is it misleading to call a Limited Company a Fund? No, of course it's not.lj wrote:Thanks uT.ultimaThule wrote:From the various snippets available online of who said what to who in the courtroom, it seems the judge continues to explore the question of whether the conclusion(s) drawn in Dr Amaral's book differ from those outlined in the Final Report.lj wrote:candyfloss wrote:Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 1m
judge says book cover says it contains `exclusive revelations'..`ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising',#McCannWhat has that to do with libel or personal damages?misleading advertis
Strang
In respect of this particular exchange I surmise that one of the lawyers, or the judge herself, drew attention to the claims made on the book's cover that it contained 'new revelations'. When the witness stated that the book's conclusion(s) did not differ from those made in the Report, the judge made the remark about 'misleading advertising' which, IMO, shows she has a sense of humour.
Hopefully, a full transcript will be available soon - from the twitter exchange between Anne Guedes and Joana Morais it appeared it went well for the defence... what a shame ID wasn't there to enjoy the fun
Interesting Isobel's absence.
ETA: I'm not being humorous. It's not misleading. It's legally allowed.
Liz Eagles- Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Whatever you may think about ID, she is a professional lawyer and as such very probably knew, knew, that the McCanns in court would be / will be a disaster for them, and therefore by extension to her.Cristobell wrote:Isabel obviously didn't want the McCanns to appear - they weren't listed. I think the fact she didn't appear at the last session is pretty major, it was a sign of protest, or their relationship is falling apart. . .
*I do hope SY have a chat with Isabel before they proceed much further.
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
judge says book cover says it contains `exclusive revelations'..`ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising', #McCann
_____________________________________________________________
'misleading'?
This is from KM bewk 2, on back cover.
"My reason for writing it is simple, to GIVE AN "ACCOUNT" (her's?) OF THE TRUTH.
Not, you'll notice, the DEFINITVE, UNCONTESTABLE, "ACCOUNT" of the TRUTH
But AN "account" of the truth.
So if it is AN "account of the truth", by definition, there could be OTHER "accounts" of the truth,
Therefore people can put forward other "accounts" of the truth, as they see them.
'misleading'?
Yep, KM's "account" certainly IS!
_____________________________________________________________
'misleading'?
This is from KM bewk 2, on back cover.
"My reason for writing it is simple, to GIVE AN "ACCOUNT" (her's?) OF THE TRUTH.
Not, you'll notice, the DEFINITVE, UNCONTESTABLE, "ACCOUNT" of the TRUTH
But AN "account" of the truth.
So if it is AN "account of the truth", by definition, there could be OTHER "accounts" of the truth,
Therefore people can put forward other "accounts" of the truth, as they see them.
'misleading'?
Yep, KM's "account" certainly IS!
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
I was just going to say this and then I saw your post pennylane, I believe the book was to be published in the UK but as we know it was stopped due to the Mcs.pennylane wrote:The Truth of the Lie would certainly contain 'new revelations' to many, particularly in the UK where they've been kept completely in the dark regarding the police files!russiandoll wrote:I believe, having read a discussion on this point between AG and another member on Justice, that the judge was being slightly sarcastic/ironic with her remark re the misleading advertising.
It depends on how you define " new revelations". The marketing department of the company publishing the book would have discussed how to lure in the prospective buyer. What better than " new revelations" ? Most people interested in the case due to the smoke and mirrors aspect of it would grab a book promising that.
The thing is that essentially it does not necessarily refer to new revelations about the investigation proper, it could be classed as a new revelation to write about peripheral issues, such as the speedy drive back to the station when a sighting had been reported, this was new, Kate's take on it not seeing the light of day until later.
So it is a true but misleading thing to put on the cover.
In the final analysis, the judge appears satisfied that as far as the investigation itself was concerned , there was nothing new, something she said last week to one of the witnesses.
They do seem to carry such weight don't they ?
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
How will members of this forum feel, if on 14 October, Crimewatch will show that the McCann's had nothing to do with Madeleine's "abduction" and had no knowledge of what happened?
I have to say, at this moment in time, I am not feeling very positive. If it DOES show that the McCann's weren't involved, then I will sign myself into an institution, and tell myself they didn't lie, there was no smell of death on the key fob, in the car boot, on Kate's clothes, in the bedroom......ok, you get my point......and all the Tapas 7 never changed their statements, and were begging to go back and do a reconstruction.
Moreover, I want to say to SY, remember that the world is watching you. Decent, honest people want the truth, but logic has shown that the McCann's DO know what happened.
I have to say, at this moment in time, I am not feeling very positive. If it DOES show that the McCann's weren't involved, then I will sign myself into an institution, and tell myself they didn't lie, there was no smell of death on the key fob, in the car boot, on Kate's clothes, in the bedroom......ok, you get my point......and all the Tapas 7 never changed their statements, and were begging to go back and do a reconstruction.
Moreover, I want to say to SY, remember that the world is watching you. Decent, honest people want the truth, but logic has shown that the McCann's DO know what happened.
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
sallypelt
How will members of this forum feel, if on 14 October, Crimewatch will show that the McCann's had nothing to do with Madeleine's "abduction" and had no knowledge of what happened?
__________________________________________________________
Crimewatch WILL show? (that the McCann's had nothing to do with Madeleine's "abduction" and had no knowledge of what happened?)
Were Crimewatch actually filming in PDL from the hours of 5:30pm til 10:15pm on the night of 3rd May 2007, monitoring the McCanns and their 'friends' every movement?
IF not, then they will NOT be able to 'show' that the McCann's were not involved.
jimo.
How will members of this forum feel, if on 14 October, Crimewatch will show that the McCann's had nothing to do with Madeleine's "abduction" and had no knowledge of what happened?
__________________________________________________________
Crimewatch WILL show? (that the McCann's had nothing to do with Madeleine's "abduction" and had no knowledge of what happened?)
Were Crimewatch actually filming in PDL from the hours of 5:30pm til 10:15pm on the night of 3rd May 2007, monitoring the McCanns and their 'friends' every movement?
IF not, then they will NOT be able to 'show' that the McCann's were not involved.
jimo.
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Daily Express
By John Twomey
10 October 2013
MADELEINE POLICE HAVE NEW SUSPECT
Scotland Yard detectives to release picture soon A NEW image of a potential suspect for the kidnap of Madeleine McCann could provide a dramatic breakthrough in the case.
Detectives plan to release the picture in the next few days as part of a major television appeal, which will include an appearance by Madeleine’s parents.
Police declined to discuss the image – which is believed to be a computer generated e- fit – but it is understood to be a central part of the fresh material gathered by Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard investigation into the little girl’s disappearance.
Kate and Gerry McCann have been shown the picture of the mystery figure seen close to the holiday apartment in Portugal from where the three- year- old was snatched in May 2007.
It will feature prominently on BBC’s Crimewatch which is due to be broadcast on Monday night.
Police and the programme makers are hopeful the appeal will be a big step forward in the quest for the truth about what happened to Madeleine.
A source close to her family said: “Everyone on the team is hoping and praying that it brings the McCanns the breakthrough they so desperately need.”
Madeleine, who would now be 10, vanished days before her fourth birthday. The Crimewatch appeal is a significant stage in Operation Grange, which was launched in May 2011 after the McCanns appealed directly to Prime Minister David Cameron for help.
Detectives have identified 41 possible suspects. The list includes 15 Britons, although three are expected to be ruled out of the inquiry in the next few days.
A Yard spokesman said yesterday: “We are not prepared to discuss, comment or speculate on the content of the upcoming appeal in relation to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
“This has been weeks in the planning and each element of the investigation must be set into the overall context of the appeal.
“We will be asking for help from the public in a number of countries, delivered through a series of public appeals.
Kidnappers
“We will do nothing to jeopardise the effectiveness of these appeals.
“The police will release the relevant material at the relevant time.”
Last week, the Yard revealed officers are attempting to discover all those who were in the vicinity of the family’s Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve by analysing mobile phone records.
The vast majority of mobile phone users will be cleared, leaving a relatively small number – which could include the kidnappers.
Meanwhile, former GP Mrs McCann is confident of winning the right to appear before a Lisbon court to speak out against retired Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann are set to appear on the Crimewatch appeal are suing Mr Amaral, 56, for libel over claims in his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie.
They are also taking action against the book’s publishers and the makers of a Portuguese television documentary.
Clarence Mitchell, the couple’s spokesman, said yesterday: “Kate is obviously the best person to describe the effect that Mr Amaral’s book has had on the search for Madeleine and the awful effect this has had on her as Madeleine’s mother and the wider McCann family.
“She will give evidence if she is given the opportunity.”
If Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro rules in favour of Mrs McCann, she could give evidence at the end of next month.
A family source said: “The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
The McCanns, both 45, from Rothley, Leicestershire, are very pleased with the level of cooperation between the authorities in London and Lisbon.
The source added: “All they want to do is put an end to the wicked lies Mr Amaral is making in his book which he insists come from his theories when he was in charge of the investigation.”
Scotland Yard detectives are not allowing the libel trial to distract them from their investigation. The source said: “Their only focus is on finding out what happened to Madeleine.”
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Such vermon ? Who is this source from the family? Pinky or Wright?A family source said: “The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
The source added: “All they want to do is put an end to the wicked lies Mr Amaral is making in his book which he insists come from his theories when he was in charge of the investigation.”
A lot of anger in those statements, presumably the source is quoting from Kate.
And this is the woman who said in her bewk she's considered quite a gentle person. Good Grief.
The positive out of this negative is : when you shout like that you know you already lost.
Scotland Yard detectives are not allowing the libel trial to distract them from their investigation. The source said: “Their only focus is on finding out what happened to Madeleine.”
Oh dearie me, who died and elected Mccanns to be SY's spokespersons?
[/quote]
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Mccanns desperation to appear is sign they know the conclusion is foregone.PeterMac wrote:Whatever you may think about ID, she is a professional lawyer and as such very probably knew, knew, that the McCanns in court would be / will be a disaster for them, and therefore by extension to her.Cristobell wrote:Isabel obviously didn't want the McCanns to appear - they weren't listed. I think the fact she didn't appear at the last session is pretty major, it was a sign of protest, or their relationship is falling apart. . .
*I do hope SY have a chat with Isabel before they proceed much further.
If they've any common sense they should stay clear of the Stand.
That said, I'd like to see Gerry and Kate in the box.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
I do hope the judge does say 'yes'.aiyoyo wrote:Mccanns desperation to appear is sign they know the conclusion is foregone.PeterMac wrote:Whatever you may think about ID, she is a professional lawyer and as such very probably knew, knew, that the McCanns in court would be / will be a disaster for them, and therefore by extension to her.Cristobell wrote:Isabel obviously didn't want the McCanns to appear - they weren't listed. I think the fact she didn't appear at the last session is pretty major, it was a sign of protest, or their relationship is falling apart. . .
*I do hope SY have a chat with Isabel before they proceed much further.
If they've any common sense they should stay clear of the Stand.
That said, I'd like to see Gerry and Kate in the box.
a. she's no fool
b. K8, Dodgy, and the PinkyPine will make SUCH A BIG MEAL of it, in the UK press, if they are prevented from having their say.
The whole case will become one gi-normous whinge like "Goncalo only won because the corruptible, Portuguese-favouring judge, didn't let us have our squeak".
I do hope they enter that box and the judge asks them the sort of questions, under oath, that they have not seen or agreed to in advance.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
'Fund' is on the list of sensitive words of Companies House and special permission has to be granted for the inclusion in the name of a co.aquila wrote:'Misleading' that's something to be explored. Is it misleading to call a Limited Company a Fund? No, of course it's not.lj wrote:Thanks uT.ultimaThule wrote:From the various snippets available online of who said what to who in the courtroom, it seems the judge continues to explore the question of whether the conclusion(s) drawn in Dr Amaral's book differ from those outlined in the Final Report.lj wrote:candyfloss wrote:Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 1m
judge says book cover says it contains `exclusive revelations'..`ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising',#McCannWhat has that to do with libel or personal damages?misleading advertis
Strang
In respect of this particular exchange I surmise that one of the lawyers, or the judge herself, drew attention to the claims made on the book's cover that it contained 'new revelations'. When the witness stated that the book's conclusion(s) did not differ from those made in the Report, the judge made the remark about 'misleading advertising' which, IMO, shows she has a sense of humour.
Hopefully, a full transcript will be available soon - from the twitter exchange between Anne Guedes and Joana Morais it appeared it went well for the defence... what a shame ID wasn't there to enjoy the fun
Interesting Isobel's absence.
ETA: I'm not being humorous. It's not misleading. It's legally allowed.
iirc last time I looked at the official site there was a long explanation about the Fund/Ltd.Co. includes the invalid excuse that the Charity Commission could not help them The Chartties Commossion gave a clear statement that they'd have been able to register the enterprise as a charity.
So we can only conclude that a Ltd..Co. was the desired outcome.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Whether you like it or not, if a suspect fails to answer police questions then they are automatically viewed with greater suspicion by not only the police but also the judiciary. Would it not be quite savvy for the judge simply to ask, "Why did you not answer the questions that were put to you by the police"? Especially the last one about "Damaging the investigation".
Just a thought.
:puke:
Just a thought.
:puke:
Woburn_exile- Posts : 239
Activity : 251
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Actually, that last one about damaging the investigation was the only one which Kate DID answer.Woburn_exile wrote:Whether you like it or not, if a suspect fails to answer police questions then they are automatically viewed with greater suspicion by not only the police but also the judiciary. Would it not be quite savvy for the judge simply to ask, "Why did you not answer the questions that were put to you by the police"? Especially the last one about "Damaging the investigation".
Just a thought.
:puke:
IIRC, the question was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are damaging the investigation?" and Kate's answer was along the lines of "Yes, if the investigation thinks so."
nobodythereeither- Posts : 273
Activity : 273
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2010-11-26
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
The source added: “All they want to do is put an end to the wicked lies Mr Amaral is making in his book which he insists come from his theories when he was in charge of the investigation.”
I wonder what wicked lies is it that the Mcs are on about ? It has been pointed out already in the trail, everything that's in the book is from the official police files !!!
It's such a pity that the UK Newspapers have no back backbone and are not willing to inform their readers of what really happened in court in Portugal.
Preferring to feed the Bull S--T at rapid speed from the Mcs.
I wonder what wicked lies is it that the Mcs are on about ? It has been pointed out already in the trail, everything that's in the book is from the official police files !!!
It's such a pity that the UK Newspapers have no back backbone and are not willing to inform their readers of what really happened in court in Portugal.
Preferring to feed the Bull S--T at rapid speed from the Mcs.
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Yes as I remember it. But do you think she is going to give the same dismissive answer in a court when asked by a judge at a trial of her own instigation? I don't think she will take the stand because she has proven herself to be a disaster when on the spot so to speak.nobodythereeither wrote:Actually, that last one about damaging the investigation was the only one which Kate DID answer.Woburn_exile wrote:Whether you like it or not, if a suspect fails to answer police questions then they are automatically viewed with greater suspicion by not only the police but also the judiciary. Would it not be quite savvy for the judge simply to ask, "Why did you not answer the questions that were put to you by the police"? Especially the last one about "Damaging the investigation".
Just a thought.
:puke:
IIRC, the question was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are damaging the investigation?" and Kate's answer was along the lines of "Yes, if the investigation thinks so."
Woburn_exile- Posts : 239
Activity : 251
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Yeah, hope the last question from this judge will be parallel, in that she asks " Do you realise that had you not opened your mouth, no one will know you have nothing between the ears?" and for Kate to reply "Yes, in the Court thinks so!"Woburn_exile wrote:Yes as I remember it. But do you think she is going to give the same dismissive answer in a court when asked by a judge at a trial of her own instigation? I don't think she will take the stand because she has proven herself to be a disaster when on the spot so to speak.nobodythereeither wrote:Actually, that last one about damaging the investigation was the only one which Kate DID answer.Woburn_exile wrote:Whether you like it or not, if a suspect fails to answer police questions then they are automatically viewed with greater suspicion by not only the police but also the judiciary. Would it not be quite savvy for the judge simply to ask, "Why did you not answer the questions that were put to you by the police"? Especially the last one about "Damaging the investigation".
Just a thought.
:puke:
IIRC, the question was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are damaging the investigation?" and Kate's answer was along the lines of "Yes, if the investigation thinks so."
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
[quote="aiyoyo"]
Questions, questions...
But why wait for the judge approval, why, when Kate has evidence of "GA lies " ?! Just publish them on the media and let the world know about your innocence! Where has this such "definitive evidence" been all these years? Why let GA say all the lies?!A family source said: “The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
Questions, questions...
____________________
"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident
Ayniia- Posts : 546
Activity : 586
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Judge Judy:
"A POX on both their Houses!
"Let's hear neither one of them"
Sorry, too hard on GA, whose house has already been poxed to extinction by the bereaved suffering parents of the child he attempted to rescue
"A POX on both their Houses!
"Let's hear neither one of them"
Sorry, too hard on GA, whose house has already been poxed to extinction by the bereaved suffering parents of the child he attempted to rescue
Guest- Guest
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Wont K Mc have to answer questions now IF the Judge agrees to her and G Mc giving their tuppence worth?? No backing down now. Here's hoping the Judge agrees Be very careful what you wish for K&G KARMA is coming. Oh and K Mc make sure you have a peeled onion in your pocket to help with the tears and histrionics of your performance for the Judge.
I think this Judge is very astute and will see right through the Mc production of "Poor Us" nothing to do with little Maddie just them and how everything effects them.
IMO-WOOF WOOF
I think this Judge is very astute and will see right through the Mc production of "Poor Us" nothing to do with little Maddie just them and how everything effects them.
IMO-WOOF WOOF
morse- Posts : 24
Activity : 24
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-10-23
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
morse wrote:Wont K Mc have to answer questions now IF the Judge agrees to her and G Mc giving their tuppence worth?? No backing down now. Here's hoping the Judge agrees Be very careful what you wish for K&G KARMA is coming. Oh and K Mc make sure you have a peeled onion in your pocket to help with the tears and histrionics of your performance for the Judge.
I think this Judge is very astute and will see right through the Mc production of "Poor Us" nothing to do with little Maddie just them and how everything effects them.
IMO-WOOF WOOF
Guest- Guest
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Would that be physical help e.g. Large sticking plasters or actual gags? Surely nothing worse? Or as she will only been helping, standing by with the iron mask and handcuffs?Ayniia wrote:aiyoyo wrote:But why wait for the judge approval, why, when Kate has evidence of "GA lies " ?! Just publish them on the media and let the world know about your innocence! Where has this such "definitive evidence" been all these years? Why let GA say all the lies?!A family source said: “The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
Questions, questions...
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Surely only after SHE has helped him having experienced FEAR?tigger wrote:Would that be physical help e.g. Large sticking plasters or actual gags? Surely nothing worse? Or as she will only been helping, standing by with the iron mask and handcuffs?Ayniia wrote:aiyoyo wrote:But why wait for the judge approval, why, when Kate has evidence of "GA lies " ?! Just publish them on the media and let the world know about your innocence! Where has this such "definitive evidence" been all these years? Why let GA say all the lies?!A family source said: “The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
Questions, questions...
In any other jurisdiction, the woman would have been certified 7 years ago
She's a raving psycho, a maniac, if we go be her own utterings
Guest- Guest
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
Thank you endgame, and welcome!endgame wrote:I think as the report in Correio da Manha makes clear the judge was being ironic. The Mccanns could argue that Amaral's defence that the book says nothing new is undermined by its own advertsing blurb which states that it has "exclusive revelations". The judge was being extremely helpful in dealing with this point and clarifying with the witness that this was actually not true - there are no exclusive revelations. She then just dismisses it as "misleading advertising" i.e. it's just what marketing people always do and it cannot be relied on as in any way countering Amaral's claim of nothing new.lj wrote:candyfloss wrote:Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 1m
judge says book cover says it contains `exclusive revelations'..`ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising',#McCannWhat has that to do with libel or personal damages?misleading advertis
Strange
____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
lj- Posts : 3329
Activity : 3590
Likes received : 208
Join date : 2009-12-01
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
“The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
She's definitely prepared to go back to Portugal to shut up GA but has refused to go back for the Scotland Yard reconstruction. Priorities. She still wants GA to ''feel fear'' but has ''forgiven'' the Abductor of her child.
“She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that.”
She's definitely prepared to go back to Portugal to shut up GA but has refused to go back for the Scotland Yard reconstruction. Priorities. She still wants GA to ''feel fear'' but has ''forgiven'' the Abductor of her child.
tasprin- Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30
Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
A gently reminder:
Madeleine McCann is mentioned twice in the WikiLeaks cables.
WikiLeaks cables: UK police 'developed' evidence against McCanns
British ambassador's reported comments to US counterpart offer insight into role of UK police in 2007 investigation
British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case.
The disclosure comes as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to court in an attempt to secure bail following his arrest last week at the request of Swedish authorities who want to interview him over allegations of sexual assault. A number of other cables released by the whistleblowers' website shed new light on aspects of the financial crisis. Revelations include:
• RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the board of the bank breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" by allowing the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro.
• The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, was so worried about the health of the banks that he proposed a secret international fund to recapitalise them six months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
• US officials expressed doubts in October 2008 over whether Ireland appreciated how much trouble its banks were in.
In one of two cables referring to the McCann case, the US ambassador notes: "Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents."
He reported that his British counterpart thought "that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors".
It was not until 21 July 2008 that the Portuguese authorities shelved their investigation and lifted the arguido status of the McCanns. Responding to the contents of the cable, a spokesman for the McCanns told the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.
"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."
British authorities had substantial involvement in the investigation launched after Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 from the holiday apartment where the McCanns had left their three children in bed before joining friends at a nearby restaurant in the Algarve village of Praia da Luz. At least one British sniffer dog was used in the investigation and, according to reports, was said to have picked up the scent of a dead body in the apartment.
In 2008, when a dossier detailing investigations by Portuguese police was made public, it emerged British scientists had warned that DNA tests on a sample from the McCanns' holiday hire car were inconclusive days before they were made suspects. It is known that the Forensic Science Service analysed material sent to Britain by Portuguese police. A spokesman for Leicestershire police said their involvement in the investigation was limited to co-ordinating UK-based inquiries on behalf of the Portuguese authorities.
Madeleine McCann is mentioned twice in the WikiLeaks cables.
WikiLeaks cables: UK police 'developed' evidence against McCanns
British ambassador's reported comments to US counterpart offer insight into role of UK police in 2007 investigation
British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case.
The disclosure comes as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to court in an attempt to secure bail following his arrest last week at the request of Swedish authorities who want to interview him over allegations of sexual assault. A number of other cables released by the whistleblowers' website shed new light on aspects of the financial crisis. Revelations include:
• RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the board of the bank breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" by allowing the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro.
• The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, was so worried about the health of the banks that he proposed a secret international fund to recapitalise them six months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
• US officials expressed doubts in October 2008 over whether Ireland appreciated how much trouble its banks were in.
In one of two cables referring to the McCann case, the US ambassador notes: "Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents."
He reported that his British counterpart thought "that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors".
It was not until 21 July 2008 that the Portuguese authorities shelved their investigation and lifted the arguido status of the McCanns. Responding to the contents of the cable, a spokesman for the McCanns told the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.
"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."
British authorities had substantial involvement in the investigation launched after Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 from the holiday apartment where the McCanns had left their three children in bed before joining friends at a nearby restaurant in the Algarve village of Praia da Luz. At least one British sniffer dog was used in the investigation and, according to reports, was said to have picked up the scent of a dead body in the apartment.
In 2008, when a dossier detailing investigations by Portuguese police was made public, it emerged British scientists had warned that DNA tests on a sample from the McCanns' holiday hire car were inconclusive days before they were made suspects. It is known that the Forensic Science Service analysed material sent to Britain by Portuguese police. A spokesman for Leicestershire police said their involvement in the investigation was limited to co-ordinating UK-based inquiries on behalf of the Portuguese authorities.
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Page 23 of 40 • 1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31 ... 40
Similar topics
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» MCCANN V AMARAL LIBEL TRIAL - UPDATES ONLY NO DISCUSSION
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» UPDATES ONLY ON LIBEL TRIAL ***NO DISCUSSION****
» MCCANN V AMARAL LIBEL TRIAL - UPDATES ONLY NO DISCUSSION
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE
» UPDATES ONLY ON LIBEL TRIAL ***NO DISCUSSION****
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Portuguese Police Investigation :: McCanns v Dr Gonçalo Amaral + ECHR
Page 23 of 40
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum