Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by aiyoyo 11.10.13 4:45

Part of the transcript of Luis Neves

SO (lawyer) – Have you any knowledge about how the "death" avenue appeared ?
LN says it was not in the beginning, he even remembers that Guilhermino Encarnação talked of abduction, but with time this idea had to be contemplated. He tells that Madeleine's parents were the first to talk of death. It occurred in the British Consulate, the parents wanted a South African ex-policeman to come with a hair machine supposed to find bodies. He remembers there were a lot of problems at the customs because of this device. Further he says that it was thereafter that the British police officers who were collaborating in Portimão started to speak of extraordinary dogs that could discover bodies on a field. He says that it is where the initiative of sending for the dogs originated. Through the help of the dogs the investigation evolved. Death appeared a serious possibility. It led to the examination of telecommunications. From the end of 2007 on, the "death" avenue became an important one.

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 18:25

Far too much to read at the moment, but lets not forget this libel trial.
Can someone please remind me when it's due to recommence?

In the meantime, I think Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?

by Guest 16.10.13 18:30

Lance De Boils wrote:Far too much to read at the moment, but lets not forget this libel trial.
Can someone please remind me when it's due to recommence?

In the meantime, I think Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?

5th November Lance

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 18:42

candyfloss wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Far too much to read at the moment, but lets not forget this libel trial.
Can someone please remind me when it's due to recommence?

In the meantime, I think Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?
5th November Lance

Thank you, Candyfloss.

by tiny 16.10.13 18:44

Lance De Boils wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Far too much to read at the moment, but lets not forget this libel trial.
Can someone please remind me when it's due to recommence?

In the meantime, I think Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?
5th November Lance
Thank you, Candyfloss.

Wonder if the mccanns get the chance to take the stand will they go ahead

by pennylane 16.10.13 19:02

tiny wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Far too much to read at the moment, but lets not forget this libel trial.
Can someone please remind me when it's due to recommence?

In the meantime, I think Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?
5th November Lance
Thank you, Candyfloss.
Wonder if the mccanns get the chance to take the stand will they go ahead

Only if it's to make a statement, without any chance to be questioned! (imo)

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 20:11

tigger wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
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.”
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?!
Questions, questions...
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?

I could barely believe my eyes when I read what appeared to me to be a threat of serious harm to Dr Amaral made by a member of the McCann, tigger, and I was outraged by it having been published in a popular UK daily newspaper.

Had the 2 sentences run together, i.e '..shut her accuser up for good as she is hopeful etc...' it may not have immediately caught my attention but seeing it presented in print as, above, there is no indication it is the libel trial by which KM intends to carry out her threat and, like yourself, I imagined her standing by ready to assist while others ensured that Dr Amaral was silenced forever.

Given that KM used her bewk to express her desire that Dr Amaral should 'feel fear', it seemed this threat published by the Daily Express was credible especially as she must surely be aware that the concept of 'soon' does not apply to libel trials in Portugal.

The hand of irony is writ large upon the past 6 and a half years and it would be fitting if KM experiences what she has wished on Dr Amaral before being shut up for good.

On that light note Wink

perhaps it would be prudent for us to debate the effect on the libel trial should KM and her spouse be unable to attend for the foreseeable future as it's rumoured fireworks night may come early this year yes

by plebgate 16.10.13 21:53

Mr. A. has shown no fear and I hope he gets to light up a big fat cigar at the end of this libel trial.

That should really wind up UNtruly Julie.

by listener 17.10.13 0:32

plebgate wrote:Mr. A. has shown no fear and I hope he gets to light up a big fat cigar at the end of this libel trial.

That should really wind up UNtruly Julie.

I understand your sentiments, but nobody will feel like celebrating anything - if it ends sad

by ProfessorPPlum 17.10.13 8:19

Not true Listener.

I for one will celebrate the preservation of *some* faith in the British peoples' sense of fair play and justice. I will celebrate an end to greedy, careless people making money so fast and so brazenly from the tragic death of an innocent little girl that no-one had time to actually stop and take in what actually happened and why.

I will celebrate the end of the horror the McCanns must be living through if they have lied for the last 6 years; I wouldn't wish that on anyone - even IF they wished it on themselves.

People celebrate when wrong-doing or 'evil' is defeated, even if only in one little corner and for a small moment in time.

by russiandoll 17.10.13 9:16

My sense of celebration will be definite and strong, but momentary because of who and what lies at the centre of all this. The overwhelming feeling I have is sadness for a little child and how she has been robbed of dignity and respect by many many people.

by plebgate 17.10.13 9:20

If Mr. A. wins the libel trial for sure I will feel like celebrating. No £1.2 million for Mr. & Mrs., no bankruptcy and costs to be paid by plaintiffs (maybe) What's not to like.

by **Hobs** 17.10.13 13:37

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 have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

At first glance these sound like strong statements, it sounds like they mean business, except, Both of the above statements are weak..

The first one you would think all she is waiting for is the nod and she will be in court before you can say clarence mitchell.

The problem is the qualifiers. qualifiers are additional words that when removed make no difference to the statement.

Here we have not one but multiple qualifiers.

A strong statement would be “She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will go back.

Instead we see the qualifiers definitely and be prepared as well as will and the distancing that which further weaken the statement.

We aren't told she will only go if the judge gives permission, only that she is definitely prepared to go, this could be she has her toothbrush ready (if she isn't sharing it with the rest of the family) and she knows where her suitcase is.

Kate is not only prepared but definitely prepared, prepared to do what?
She is prepared to do THAT.
She doesn't tell us kate is prepared to testify, only that she is prepared to do something.
This is close that is distancing, for there to be a THAT there has to be a THIS.
If she is definitely prepared to do that (distancing) what is she really prepared to do as we aren't told it is to give evidence ie testify?

The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

Oh dear, again it looks like a strong statement when it again weakened by not one but two qualifiers.
Absolutely and whatsoever are the qualifiers, words which if removed do not affect the intent of the message which is no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance.

Also worth noting is the use of the word disappearance and not abduction as has been spouted from the get go.

Disappearance is passive , abduction is an action word

They cannot say there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever as there is evidence both forensic and from blood and cadaver dogs that indicate there was at some point a dead body in the apartment and hire car. Since it is unlikely an abductor would take a dead body away ( it makes for extra work and more chance of being caught lugging a corpse around and disposong of it. Why risk it when cops are going to be involved anyway, just leave the body in situ, covered with a blanket so she looks asleep and head for the hills)

by ProfessorPPlum 17.10.13 13:39

tasprin wrote:“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.

Beautiful (sick) juxtapositions Tasprin!

by Nereid 17.10.13 16:11

Copied over from the German Crimewatch thread:

From the horse's mouth in the German reconstruction video:

"
Kate: Leaks, lies, misinformation that went to the media in August 2007 gave the impression that Madeleine was dead and that we had something to do with it. Whoever caused this, tried to tell the world that Madeleine is dead. And then people stop looking for her. For us that was just desperate."

Amaral's book was published in 2008!!!!

by Daisy 17.10.13 16:24

Nice one Nereid. thumbsup

Hoping someone can answer my question please. Did the PJ have access to Kate's medical records? I know they were refused access to Madeleine's but what about KM's?

by plebgate 17.10.13 16:25

Nereid wrote:Copied over from the German Crimewatch thread:

From the horse's mouth in the German reconstruction video:

"
Kate: Leaks, lies, misinformation that went to the media in August 2007 gave the impression that Madeleine was dead and that we had something to do with it. Whoever caused this, tried to tell the world that Madeleine is dead. And then people stop looking for her. For us that was just desperate."

Amaral's book was published in 2008!!!!

Unbelievable isn't it!!!!!!

by plebgate 17.10.13 16:27

I wonder if this has been said so that the libel trial will be kicked out? No more trial, no witness box cross exam?

by nobodythereeither 17.10.13 16:34

plebgate wrote:I wonder if this has been said so that the libel trial will be kicked out? No more trial, no witness box cross exam?

Interesting thought.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 8:14

Having read the opinions of the forum over the past couple of years, there's one aspect of Amaral's version of events that doesn't work - death at 9.15pm (by falling off the sofa) and discovery at 10pm, because according to most people on here, the cadaverine wouldn't have had enough time to develop

In other words, Amaral's theory is WRONG

Surprising that an experienced detective should make such a simple error

An undiscovered death between 7 and 8.45, as mentioned on another recent thread, would make more sense in that respect

So (and I have never seen this discussed, apologies if it has)

I can only assume that Amaral made a "deliberate mistake" in the book in order to create a potential libel case against him (ie it could be proved she didn't die at 9.15)

Thus forcing everyone into court......

by Joss 16.11.13 9:27

Over The Hill wrote:Having read the opinions of the forum over the past couple of years, there's one aspect of Amaral's version of events that doesn't work - death at 9.15pm (by falling off the sofa) and discovery at 10pm, because according to most people on here, the cadaverine wouldn't have had enough time to develop

In other words, Amaral's theory is WRONG

Surprising that an experienced detective should make such a simple error

An undiscovered death between 7 and 8.45, as mentioned on another recent thread, would make more sense in that respect

So (and I have never seen this discussed, apologies if it has)

I can only assume that Amaral made a "deliberate mistake" in the book in order to create a potential libel case against him (ie it could be proved she didn't die at 9.15)

Thus forcing everyone into court......

I think from what i have read cadaverine can be detected about half an hour to an hour after someone has died.
There are articles on this subject that have been posted. A google search also comes up with articles on the subject also.

by pennylane 16.11.13 9:29

Joss wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:Having read the opinions of the forum over the past couple of years, there's one aspect of Amaral's version of events that doesn't work - death at 9.15pm (by falling off the sofa) and discovery at 10pm, because according to most people on here, the cadaverine wouldn't have had enough time to develop

In other words, Amaral's theory is WRONG

Surprising that an experienced detective should make such a simple error

An undiscovered death between 7 and 8.45, as mentioned on another recent thread, would make more sense in that respect

So (and I have never seen this discussed, apologies if it has)

I can only assume that Amaral made a "deliberate mistake" in the book in order to create a potential libel case against him (ie it could be proved she didn't die at 9.15)

Thus forcing everyone into court......
I think from what i have read cadaverine can be detected about half an hour to an hour after someone has died.
There are articles on this subject that have been posted. A google search also comes up with articles on the subject also.

Dead right, Joss! thumbup

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 9:37

I have seen those posts but there appears to be no definitive answer, and for years the accepted science on forums like this was that it needed 1.5 to 2 hours. It's only recently that people have started saying 30 mins might be enough, as if they are trying to make the timeline fit the science rather than the other way round. This is pivotal to the whole case, so can someone clear this up once and for all?

If it's 30 mins, Amaral may be right

If it's 1.5 to 2 hours, he's wrong, and my original point re his desire for a libel lawsuit against him would still stand

Further evidence that he was trying to induce a libel case lies in the fact that he went with the T9 timeline, which is clearly wrong according to other witnesses. I don't understand why he would do this unless it was deliberate

by sami 16.11.13 9:46

Over The Hill wrote:I have seen those posts but there appears to be no definitive answer, and for years the accepted science on forums like this was that it needed 1.5 to 2 hours. It's only recently that people have started saying 30 mins might be enough, as if they are trying to make the timeline fit the science rather than the other way round. This is pivotal to the whole case, so can someone clear this up once and for all?

If it's 30 mins, Amaral may be right

If it's 1.5 to 2 hours, he's wrong, and my original point re his desire for a libel lawsuit against him would still stand

Amaral's book is based on the information available in the publically released files. Nothing more, it is based on an investigation to a certain point, therefore factual.

Where the investigation was going and what is in the with held files is not known. Investigations change by the minute based on new information.

I don't think you can state therefore he is wrong. His book is factual, based on a specific point in time.

by Over The Hill 16.11.13 9:53

I don't agree with that sami, it was known within days that the T9 timeline didn't agree with witnesses like the Carpenters and the Ocean Club Staff. One can argue that it was never established what time everything happened. So why did Amaral go with the T9 version?

Log in for more topics