Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by notlongnow 19.11.13 16:30

Truthandjustice wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 3m
Seems #McCann v #Amaral & Others libel trial to go into December. Judge to decide on 27 Nov whether McCanns (plaintiffs) can make statement.

That's interesting. Not "give evidence" but "make a statement". (Although thinking about it, I might be reading too much into this - it might just be a slight mistranslation)
My understanding (from Joana Morais blog) is that neither Mcs nor GA are 'witnesses' as such. As plaintiff and defendant they can make statements and the Judge can ask questions but the opposing lawyer can only ask via the judge for clarification not cross examine directly.

Be surprised if the judge didn't want to question someone over the smith e fits.

by sallypelt 19.11.13 16:38

@Dantew28 Dantew28
[url=javascript:;][/url] [url=javascript:;][/url] [url=javascript:;][/url]5m

@eddiemorris1964 I have heard no witnesses heard today, postponed till the 27th. A new day for closing to be set #McCann

by sami 19.11.13 16:46

notlongnow wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 3m
Seems #McCann v #Amaral & Others libel trial to go into December. Judge to decide on 27 Nov whether McCanns (plaintiffs) can make statement.

That's interesting. Not "give evidence" but "make a statement". (Although thinking about it, I might be reading too much into this - it might just be a slight mistranslation)
My understanding (from Joana Morais blog) is that neither Mcs nor GA are 'witnesses' as such. As plaintiff and defendant they can make statements and the Judge can ask questions but the opposing lawyer can only ask via the judge for clarification not cross examine directly.
Be surprised if the judge didn't want to question someone over the smith e fits.

But the McCanns asked to be heard as witnesses and not plaintiffs. This was put to the judge according to the transcript of the last days hearing.

by Cristobell 19.11.13 16:55

AndyB wrote:
Christobell wrote:A lot of Team McCann have been 'let go', including faithful servant Clarence.
I've seen the claim about the McCanns and Mitchel parting company several times now. Do we know that it's true or is it just speculation?

I don't know if he still gets an annual salary from the Fund Andy, but I doubt it. My feeling is, the McCanns are near broke. This trial must be costing a fortune, air fares to and from Lisbon for themselves and their witnesses, before you even get started on the costs of the 'experts' and the legal fees. They insisted on the best lawyers, so presumably Miss Duarte does not come cheap.

by Truthandjustice 19.11.13 17:05

sami wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 3m
Seems #McCann v #Amaral & Others libel trial to go into December. Judge to decide on 27 Nov whether McCanns (plaintiffs) can make statement.

That's interesting. Not "give evidence" but "make a statement". (Although thinking about it, I might be reading too much into this - it might just be a slight mistranslation)
My understanding (from Joana Morais blog) is that neither Mcs nor GA are 'witnesses' as such. As plaintiff and defendant they can make statements and the Judge can ask questions but the opposing lawyer can only ask via the judge for clarification not cross examine directly.
Be surprised if the judge didn't want to question someone over the smith e fits.
But the McCanns asked to be heard as witnesses and not plaintiffs. This was put to the judge according to the transcript of the last days hearing.

That may just be semantics (what other word could be used?). I read that in Portuguese law the plaintiff and defendant are treated differently to 'witnesses' in court procedure. I don't think the Mcs can decide what role they want to play.

by jay2001 19.11.13 17:07

I know Goncalo said 'Justice works in silence' but it sure does work slowly in Portugal! It's driving us crazy so it must be unbearable for Dr A and there'll be a hell of a lot to get through on 27 November.

It will be very interesting to see if the judge does allow the Mcs to take the stand. As the book is based on police files I don't see how it can be libellous, but if Dr Amaral loses it will show how corrupt this situation is - must be positive and not think like that!

Cristobell - don't know about CM and whether he's still being paid or not. If he wasn't on some sort of retainer why does he still keep sticking press release quotes to the tabloids? His connection to this case should put Brighton voters in a spin!

by sami 19.11.13 17:20

Truthandjustice wrote:
sami wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 3m
Seems #McCann v #Amaral & Others libel trial to go into December. Judge to decide on 27 Nov whether McCanns (plaintiffs) can make statement.

That's interesting. Not "give evidence" but "make a statement". (Although thinking about it, I might be reading too much into this - it might just be a slight mistranslation)
My understanding (from Joana Morais blog) is that neither Mcs nor GA are 'witnesses' as such. As plaintiff and defendant they can make statements and the Judge can ask questions but the opposing lawyer can only ask via the judge for clarification not cross examine directly.
Be surprised if the judge didn't want to question someone over the smith e fits.
But the McCanns asked to be heard as witnesses and not plaintiffs. This was put to the judge according to the transcript of the last days hearing.
That may just be semantics (what other word could be used?). I read that in Portuguese law the plaintiff and defendant are treated differently to 'witnesses' in court procedure. I don't think the Mcs can decide what role they want to play.

My apologies, I wrote my post back to front. They asked to be heard a plaintiffs, not as witnesses. I did not read my own post until now. Sorry.

by Cristobell 19.11.13 17:35

jay2001 wrote:I know Goncalo said 'Justice works in silence' but it sure does work slowly in Portugal! It's driving us crazy so it must be unbearable for Dr A and there'll be a hell of a lot to get through on 27 November.

It will be very interesting to see if the judge does allow the Mcs to take the stand. As the book is based on police files I don't see how it can be libellous, but if Dr Amaral loses it will show how corrupt this situation is - must be positive and not think like that!

Cristobell - don't know about CM and whether he's still being paid or not. If he wasn't on some sort of retainer why does he still keep sticking press release quotes to the tabloids? His connection to this case should put Brighton voters in a spin!

I think he became a family friend to the McCanns. Alternatively, he is up to his neck in it, I'm not really sure how he can say 'I was only following orders', he was actively involved in the Campaign and the fundraising. He's obviously not planning a future working for the McCanns, HE wants to be story now.

The next lot of accounts will be interesting, although if i recall correctly, Enid O'Dowd's review found NO employees. She didn't find any book royalties either, and at some point someone will have to investigate the Fund officially.

by Guest 19.11.13 17:43

I know that's correct about no employees according to the accounts.

Yet according to Kate's friend Karen McCalman's LinkedIn profile, she was the campaign co-ordinator for more than 3 years and presumably there was someone before her.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karen-mccalman/15/3a9/801

by ultimaThule 19.11.13 18:10

Cristobell wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Christobell wrote:A lot of Team McCann have been 'let go', including faithful servant Clarence.
I've seen the claim about the McCanns and Mitchel parting company several times now. Do we know that it's true or is it just speculation?
I don't know if he still gets an annual salary from the Fund Andy, but I doubt it. My feeling is, the McCanns are near broke. This trial must be costing a fortune, air fares to and from Lisbon for themselves and their witnesses, before you even get started on the costs of the 'experts' and the legal fees. They insisted on the best lawyers, so presumably Miss Duarte does not come cheap.

I put my mind to gauging the probable costs of the libel trial to the ~~Fund~~ McCanns here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8530-question-about-amaral-s-legal-fees

It would seem half a million euros is a conservative estimate, with the true costs possibly being half as much again, as the Plaintiffs have also consulted English lawyers in respect of this case and, indeed, have flown one or more of their UK legal advisers to Lisbon (and back) on a number of occasions.

Of course, these costs have been incurred over a period of some 3+ years and should be set against the fact that it has not been necessary to expend sums on leaving no stone unturned in the 'search' for Madeleine since SY embarked on their investigative review in mid-2011.

I would hazard a guess there's still plenty of cash in the ~~limited company~~ Fund's kitty, albeit that some may have been diverted to ~~off-shore~~ high yield investments in order to generate interest of the monetary kind.

With regard to ~~GM's alter ego~~ CM I seem to recall reading that, since leaving full-time employment to concentrate on his political aspirations, his services have been retained on a stipend of some £40,000 per annum.

by AndyB 19.11.13 18:51

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I know that's correct about no employees according to the accounts.

Yet according to Kate's friend Karen McCalman's LinkedIn profile, she was the campaign co-ordinator for more than 3 years and presumably there was someone before her.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karen-mccalman/15/3a9/801

Neither CM nor Karen McCalman need show up in the fund accounts as employees. If they had technically been self-employed they would be accounted for as supplying PR and Admin services respectively and could legitimately be accounted for as supplier costs.

by Liz Eagles 19.11.13 20:24

Didn't CM say something along the lines of the McCann's legal costs were covered in a separate fund? I seem to remember viewing that recently on a youtube video posted on the forum.

Can anyone help with a link? NFWTD, can you help out on this? You're exceptionally good at links.

by Guest 19.11.13 20:42

IIrc the good samaritan Brian Kennedy II is so convinced of Kates' innocence he has vowed to cover all her litigation expenses ad infinitum, forever, no matter how high

I wonder if mrs Brian Kennedy concurs?

Or his shareholders, if any

by sallypelt 19.11.13 21:10

Portia wrote:IIrc the good samaritan Brian Kennedy II is so convinced of Kates' innocence he has vowed to cover all her litigation expenses ad infinitum, forever, no matter how high

I wonder if mrs Brian Kennedy concurs?

Or his shareholders, if any

Didn't Brian Kennedy stop paying C Mitchell's salary back in 2009/10, and all he pays for now is the McCann's office?

by Beanie 19.11.13 21:21

Portia wrote:IIrc the good samaritan Brian Kennedy II is so convinced of Kates' innocence he has vowed to cover all her litigation expenses ad infinitum, forever, no matter how high

I wonder if mrs Brian Kennedy concurs?

Or his shareholders, if any

You are correct Brian Kennedy did say this, which IMO is completely bizarre, unless he had an ulterior motive.

by Daisy 19.11.13 21:34

sallypelt wrote:
Portia wrote:IIrc the good samaritan Brian Kennedy II is so convinced of Kates' innocence he has vowed to cover all her litigation expenses ad infinitum, forever, no matter how high

I wonder if mrs Brian Kennedy concurs?

Or his shareholders, if any
Didn't Brian Kennedy stop paying C Mitchell's salary back in 2009/10, and all he pays for now is the McCann's office?

According to the mainstream media he lost £50 million from his fortune in the 'credit crunch' so had to scale back his contributions, aww bless.

"The multi-millionaire tycoon backing Kate and Gerry McCann in their search for their daughter has cut back his financial support after losing an estimated £50million from his fortune.

Brian Kennedy, who pledged to support the McCanns until Madeleine was found, has stopped paying for the couple’s media campaign after the credit crunch hit his business interests."

Full report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191299/Crunch-hit-tycoon-scales-cash-aid-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html

by tasprin 19.11.13 21:45

I wonder if Brian Kennedy read the suppressed report and e-fits.

by ultimaThule 19.11.13 22:02

Daisy wrote:According to the mainstream media he lost £50 million from his fortune in the 'credit crunch' so had to scale back his contributions, aww bless.

"The multi-millionaire tycoon backing Kate and Gerry McCann in their search for their daughter has cut back his financial support after losing an estimated £50million from his fortune.

Brian Kennedy, who pledged to support the McCanns until Madeleine was found, has stopped paying for the couple’s media campaign after the credit crunch hit his business interests."

Full report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191299/Crunch-hit-tycoon-scales-cash-aid-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html

From the same article: "The fund was also drawn upon heavily by private detective agencies hired by the McCanns and Mr Kennedy, including an American firm, which charged £500,000 for six months work.
It was replenished by defamation action against British media organisations. And this newspaper can reveal that the defamation case against Mr Amaral is expected to reap the McCanns a six-figure compensation fee."

Six-figure compensation fee? Surely that should read ~~in their dreams~~ seven figures as 1,250,000euros is in excess of a million even when converted into £sterling?

Btw, is that a picture of the wee one staring at a certain flower bed?

by Rufus T 19.11.13 22:23

ultimaThule wrote:

Btw, is that a picture of the wee one staring at a certain flower bed?

The wee one, I like that.

by Guest 19.11.13 22:27

I thought his name was Tiny Tears ...

by Daisy 19.11.13 22:39

ultimaThule wrote:
Daisy wrote:According to the mainstream media he lost £50 million from his fortune in the 'credit crunch' so had to scale back his contributions, aww bless.

"The multi-millionaire tycoon backing Kate and Gerry McCann in their search for their daughter has cut back his financial support after losing an estimated £50million from his fortune.

Brian Kennedy, who pledged to support the McCanns until Madeleine was found, has stopped paying for the couple’s media campaign after the credit crunch hit his business interests."

Full report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191299/Crunch-hit-tycoon-scales-cash-aid-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
From the same article: "The fund was also drawn upon heavily by private detective agencies hired by the McCanns and Mr Kennedy, including an American firm, which charged £500,000 for six months work.
It was replenished by defamation action against British media organisations. And this newspaper can reveal that the defamation case against Mr Amaral is expected to reap the McCanns a six-figure compensation fee."

Six-figure compensation fee? Surely that should read ~~in their dreams~~ seven figures as 1,250,000euros is in excess of a million even when converted into £sterling?

Btw, is that a picture of the wee one staring at a certain flower bed?

Eek! I didn't even notice that pic.

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 31 Article-1191299-044CA118000005DC-725_468x391

by ekatae 19.11.13 22:43

Good old Irish and Scouser's employed to: Be on Fund payroll, Do our Documentary and Investigate in PDL ...!! spin

by ultimaThule 19.11.13 23:05

It may be trick of the light, but wee Gerry appears to have that familiar self-satisfied smirk on his smug little chops:

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 31 Article-1191299-044CA118000005DC-725_468x391

by listener 19.11.13 23:48

sallypelt wrote:
Didn't Brian Kennedy stop paying C Mitchell's salary back in 2009/10, and all he pays for now is the McCann's office?

He bought them an office - or a house in Knutsford - 80 miles + from where they live???
Why so far?
Don't they have a spare room in that huge house at 5, The Crescent, Rothley?

Why buy a house? - so far away?

"I'm just nipping down to the office" ???

by stumo 20.11.13 0:11

ultimaThule wrote:It may be trick of the light, but wee Gerry appears to have that familiar self-satisfied smirk on his smug little chops:

Doesn't he always ?

Log in for more topics