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 4 of 40 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jeanmonroe on 28.09.13 12:46

@marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?
NOT in a million years did they ever think they'd ACTUALLY end up in a real courtroom!

They thought GA would capitulate to them, unreservedly.

They got a lot of dosh for themselves and their mates from an 'uncontested' case from the Express and others.

They thought they'd get the same from GA, imo.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 28.09.13 12:51

@marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?
The law in Portugal didn't change until July 2013. When the McCann's decided to sue Amaral for libel, the McCann's were safe in the knowledge that they couldn't be called. But the change in the law has changed all that.

How they mighty fall!

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Cristobell on 28.09.13 12:57

@jeanmonroe wrote:
@marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?
NOT in a million years did they ever think they'd ACTUALLY end up in a real courtroom!

They thought GA would capitulate to them, unreservedly.

They got a lot of dosh for themselves and their mates from an 'uncontested' case from the Express and others.

They thought they'd get the same from GA, imo.
Indeed they did.  They used every trick in the book to break him.  Even going so far as interfering in the trial of convicted murderess Leonor Cipriano.  That was evil beyond words, and I think of things like that whenever I feel a twinge of sympathy for them.  

Isabel said the offer of settlement has only been on the table.  We can only imagine the pressure he must have been under, yet he stood firm, he is a very wise man, obviously knew that this trial would be the beginning of the end for the Kate and Gerry Show.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Woburn_exile on 28.09.13 13:01

@ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.

Note the number of referrals to "The investigation now being handled by the Metropolitan Police". This has to be a media stunt surely. What is he supposedly disappointed about?
shark 

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by gbwales on 28.09.13 13:05

I've emailed The Guardian journalist who wrote that piece above, with the following:


Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.

 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”

 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before....yes 

Thanks to PeterMac for those succinct report snippets that are the core of the email. We should share these with the media more often... winkwink

gbwales

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jeanmonroe on 28.09.13 13:09

@Woburn_exile wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.
Note the number of referrals to "The investigation now being handled by the Metropolitan Police". This has to be a media stunt surely. What is he supposedly disappointed about?
shark 
Note the referral of Mr Smug to 'the facts of the, erm, files' rather than Mr GA's book?

Gerry McCann: "Well, the law's changed and I think, errr... I think Kate and I know better than anyone else, errr... what we've experienced and what we've gone through and the facts of the file and, erm... the damage that's been caused to the search for Madeleine".

So has the 'damage' been done by the FACTS of the file...............or GA's book?

Some 'back sliding' going on here?

Perhaps he will say it wasn't GA's book, after all, that caused their 'symptoms' but the FILE!

Hoping to 'settle' for less, perhaps, with GA? (with a gagging clause, of course!)

Won't hold my breath waiting to hear an 'apology' from the McS, to GA, anytime soon.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Woburn_exile on 28.09.13 15:24

Could it possibly be that Gerry comes in and makes a speech;
I'd like to continue with this trial but a source close to the Metropolitan Police investigation into the abduction in 2007 ahs confidentially advised me that the Police are currently pursuing a fresh inquiry lead that could mean we will find Madeleine by the end of this year. So if we stop this trial now and forget everything that happened it will not impede on the continued investigation into the abduction of Madeleine by Scotland yard.

Thank you thank you everyone and Isobel will answer any questions you have. Kate and I still have to go back to the UK to continue the search for Madeleine



bomb shutup 

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by lj on 28.09.13 15:52

@Woburn_exile wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.
Note the number of referrals to "The investigation now being handled by the Metropolitan Police". This has to be a media stunt surely. What is he supposedly disappointed about?
shark 
He has always gotten everything his way, with the last 6 years even getting a super vip treatment just for being so stupid you loose a child. He must have been very disappointed he was not received by bowing minions who said: of course mr McCann, for you we'll bend the law.

BTW I noticed: he has lost some weight, is still dying his hair to dark. If we only knew he bought new underwear we would be sure he is the one who has moved on.

____________________
"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 : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 28.09.13 16:17

I don't know if this one has been posted

http://www.express.coGerry-McCann-with-his-sister-Trish-JONATHAN-BUCKMASTER- .uk/news/uk/432722/Gerry-McCann-s-anguish-as-court-battle-is-delayed

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by jozi on 28.09.13 16:35

@sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this one has been posted

http://www.express.coGerry-McCann-with-his-sister-Trish-JONATHAN-BUCKMASTER- .uk/news/uk/432722/Gerry-McCann-s-anguish-as-court-battle-is-delayed
The link don't open for me !

jozi

Posts : 710
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by gbwales on 28.09.13 16:49


gbwales

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 28.09.13 16:55

According to that article, evidence is due to be heard until late November; wonder if we'll have a verdict before the New Year!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Woofer on 28.09.13 17:49

@gbwales wrote:I've emailed The Guardian journalist who wrote that piece above, with the following:


Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.

 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”

 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before....yes 

Thanks to PeterMac for those succinct report snippets that are the core of the email. We should share these with the media more often... winkwink
Well done you.  thanks

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Monty Heck on 28.09.13 19:59

@maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.
Intersting quote re SH's evidence:

"Mrs Hubbard said the couple were forced to use all their energy to defend themselves, instead of searching for their daughter."

The implication is that they were forced to defend themselves by the release of the book.  How could anyone in their right mind make that connection when GA's book was not released until after the archiving report was made public, and after they were officially released from their arguido status.  That had massive coverage in the international media resulting in huge numbers of people believing that they had been exonerated, because that was specifically stated in every press release.  Clarence Mitchell even claimed it was the perfect PR campaign.  It's clear from the comments above that people dislike the McCann's mainly on the basis of their having left their children alone and exposing them to danger, then instead of showing remorse, they turned themselves into some kind of celebrities.

The fact is that, while media monitoring may have shown a rise in internet discussion following GA's book release, the commenting in the mainstream media was pretty much along the lines of "how did they get off with not being done for self admitted child neglect - we don't like that" exactly as is being said above, 5 years after the arguido status was rescinded.  The majority of the people commenting on the mainstream press had never even heard of GA before this case, yet it is claimed his book influenced opinion and not only in Portugal.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aquila on 28.09.13 20:06

@Monty Heck wrote:
@maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.
Intersting quote re SH's evidence:

"Mrs Hubbard said the couple were forced to use all their energy to defend themselves, instead of searching for their daughter."

The implication is that they were forced to defend themselves by the release of the book.  How could anyone in their right mind make that connection when GA's book was not released until after the archiving report was made public, and after they were officially released from their arguido status.  That had massive coverage in the international media resulting in huge numbers of people believing that they had been exonerated, because that was specifically stated in every press release.  Clarence Mitchell even claimed it was the perfect PR campaign.  It's clear from the comments above that people dislike the McCann's mainly on the basis of their having left their children alone and exposing them to danger, then instead of showing remorse, they turned themselves into some kind of celebrities.

The fact is that, while media monitoring may have shown a rise in internet discussion following GA's book release, the commenting in the mainstream media was pretty much along the lines of "how did they get off with not being done for self admitted child neglect - we don't like that" exactly as is being said above, 5 years after the arguido status was rescinded.  The majority of the people commenting on the mainstream press had never even heard of GA before this case, yet it is claimed his book influenced opinion and not only in Portugal.
Another great post Monty Heck.

I often wonder if it is because Sr Amaral spoilt the McCann Plan for their own book, their own documentary, perhaps even their own film and media domination.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by JackieL on 28.09.13 20:17

@Monty Heck wrote:
@maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.
The fact is that, while media monitoring may have shown a rise in internet discussion following GA's book release, the commenting in the mainstream media was pretty much along the lines of "how did they get off with not being done for self admitted child neglect - we don't like that" exactly as is being said above, 5 years after the arguido status was rescinded.  The majority of the people commenting on the mainstream press had never even heard of GA before this case, yet it is claimed his book influenced opinion and not only in Portugal.
Very good point, Monty.

JackieL

Posts : 221
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by littlepixie on 28.09.13 20:30

My Dad had never heard of Mr Amaral or his book until this week when he read about the ongoing case in the papers.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Truthandjustice on 28.09.13 20:53

@littlepixie wrote:My Dad had never heard of Mr Amaral or his book until this week when he read about the ongoing case in the papers.
Oops. maybe they should have held this case behind closed doors.

Truthandjustice

Posts : 237
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 28.09.13 23:47

@gbwales wrote:I've emailed The Guardian journalist who wrote that piece above, with the following:


Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.

 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”

 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before....yes 

Thanks to PeterMac for those succinct report snippets that are the core of the email. We should share these with the media more often... winkwink
Absolutely, gbwales. In fact I did just that at 10am this morning - to a journalist who has written front page McCann stories for the Mail on Sunday.

ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by marconi on 28.09.13 23:53

It seems that Isabel Duarte was warned  on Thursday that Amaral's lawyer would not be present on Friday.
Yet, Gerry insisted on going to Lisbon, wasting time and money. Odd?
Maybe not.
Could it be that he had a secret appointement with a Briton from Algarve?
And it was urgent?  Maybe exchanging cellular phones, those ones you buy in a super market?
And he met the Briton at the loo of the airport?
Perhaps washing his hands and somebody would put a letter or a recorded message in  his pocket,  or simply the other way around?
Because according to myself, he didn't go to Portugal since the review became an investigation.

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 marconi on 29.09.13 3:01

it was naief that the McCanns believed in their eternal power. or perhaps they could not get rid of the issue, remaining slaves of the media.
I remember amaral's words: "someday Britain will have another government".
and it happened.

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 plebgate on 29.09.13 11:11

@marconi wrote:it was naief that the McCanns believed in their eternal power. or perhaps they could not get rid of the issue, remaining slaves of the media.
I remember amaral's words: "someday Britain will have another government".
and it happened.
thumbup  Mr. A. was never going to capitulate to them despite what their" friends" posted for years and many, many Maddie supporters were right when they said exactly that.

plebgate

Posts : 5446
Reputation : 1161
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aquila on 30.09.13 9:47

I think this has been posted before but I'm bumping it up.

It's the TV3 Interview re the McCann book launch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUB-5jCPV44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDLZh1cxdGc

To me it's the most contrived interview to date. It's a pity the McCanns listened to all their paid advisors because none of them have achieved a darned positive thing to find Madeleine other than a paid invoice or a bit of pro bono work to further their career status.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aiyoyo on 30.09.13 12:36

That bit where he said they were not accused of anything he fidgets and rubs his nose.......

The body language of them both is simply AWFUL.........

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 ShuBob on 01.10.13 16:58

A poster started a thread which is now in the debate forum about an interesting tweet from the investigative journalist Meirion Jones of Newsnight (Savile) fame. On reading Jones' timeline, I found an even more interesting tweet which appears to suggest the McCanns may have launched a civil action against Halligen:

Meirion Jones ‏@MeirionTweets wrote:@JillyCL As far as I know there are no charges just a rumoured civil action by the McCanns
https://twitter.com/MeirionTweets/status/384655514589622272

So despite Clarence Mitchell shouting from the rooftops that Halligen didn't defraud the fund but then saying he was pleased after Halligen's arrest was reported, it would appear (according to Meirion) they may have launched a civil action against him? I wonder what that's about as I doubt it's for fraud as that comes under criminal law as far as I know thinking

ShuBob

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 40 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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