Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by Research_Reader 20.11.13 11:20

Clay Regazzoni wrote:When you don't read tabloid newspapers for years at a time then casually dip into one it is a very surreal experience. A similar effect can be had on viewing TV for the first time after a long break. Basically there's a palpable sense of being told what they want you to hear.

I couldn't agree more! I haven't watched TV in years, and, in fact, the recent Crimewatch McCann 'Special' was probably the first factual show I have watched in a long time. It struck me instantly how insincere the presenters and police sounded. Like they were actors or PR spokesmen. I found it quite unsettling.

by ultimaThule 20.11.13 11:27

soundworks wrote:
sami wrote:Recent tweet

@Justice_forum: Day 9 of the #McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral libel trial in Lisbon sees McCann lawyer Isabel Duarte demanding proof of royalties paid to Amaral.
there you go then

papers twisting to suit their agenda

judge not demanding but the mccanns themselves

ffs I just wish they would be arrested and thrown in prison

In the last published transcripts I detected a tinge of jealousy in a couple of the questions Izzy had been instructed to put to one of the defence witnesses and I wondered how KM would feel on learning that Dr Amaral's book is now in its 12th edition with no reduction in price, while her bewk has been consigned to the bargain bucket and remaindered bins big grin

Fwiw, Amazon UK customer reviews on the bewk lead me to suspect an English edition of 'The Truth Of The Lie' will be available in the not to distant future.

by Liz Eagles 20.11.13 11:28

Châtelaine wrote:I understand, that it's perfectly normal as part of the process to establish amounts. Maybe also the French, Dutch, German, Danish etc. royalties which he hasn't been paid yet ...

That's my understanding too.

I don't see anything into this whoever requested the information whether it be ID or the Judge herself. It's part of the process. If ID requested it then why would the Judge refuse that request? To my mind it has no bearing on a ruling.

by noddy100 20.11.13 11:30

Ah that is clearer.
ID demanding means nothing really

by ultimaThule 20.11.13 11:41

noddy100 wrote:Ah that is clearer.
ID demanding means nothing really

ID demanding means nothing more than her clients ~~throwing their toys out of the pram~~ demanding to have something their dog loving mouthpiece can use to deflect attention from the fact that, having failed to substantiate their case, they're on a hiding to nothing.

by plebgate 20.11.13 12:28

ultimaThule wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Ah that is clearer.
ID demanding means nothing really
ID demanding means nothing more than her clients ~~throwing their toys out of the pram~~ demanding to have something their dog loving mouthpiece can use to deflect attention from the fact that, having failed to substantiate their case, they're on a hiding to nothing.

I still think Mr. A. will win this case. Mrs. would not have looked so worn out in the Gala photos and reportedly said how tired she was feeling if she thought she was winning IMO of course. Where was Mr. on that night? Have any photos been put up on Missing Persons Website showing all their wonderful guests enjoying the evening and bidding on the auctions?
People making rude comments on twitter and forums cannot change anything that is happening in Portugal, so why bother? spin

by jeanmonroe 20.11.13 12:53

I DEMAND to know how much of the 'donation' (£38.73p) made to the Madeleine 'fund' raised by a group of handicapped kiddies, specifically given, after tremendous exertions, to be used, so they thought, for 'searching only' for Madeleine, ended up in their spokesman's pocket or paying mortgage repayments on the McCanns house or paid for GM to stay at 5* hotels in Lisbon, lawyers/legal 'fees' etc, etc!

When ID answers THAT, then, and only then, will she have the moral authority to ask her questions about other peoples 'finances'.

by lj 20.11.13 14:21

noddy100 wrote:Why are the Mirror so supportive of the McCanns even though they gave all their exclusives book serialisation etc to the Sun? TIA

Because it sells papers.

by Guest 20.11.13 14:28

lj wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Why are the Mirror so supportive of the McCanns even though they gave all their exclusives book serialisation etc to the Sun? TIA
Because it sells papers.

They also love Gordon Brown. Absolutely love him. My mother reads the Mirror religiously every day and she loves him too. The McCanns "win" by association.

by Joss 20.11.13 14:57

I don't really see how Mr. Amaral will lose in this case. I'm sure being a seasoned Police officer he would of been aware of how the Laws in his country work and what would be considered libelous or not. I don't really think he would have placed himself at risk in that way.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.13 14:59

Thomas_Baden_Riess wrote:
Today at 2:28 pm

Tony, I have been recently reading some of your articles about Murat (and would like to both thank and applaud you for those excellent reads). I was wondering if you are able, in these forums, to purport any theories, e.g. about Kennedy and Murat making a deal, and various other issues that you could only hint at in the book. Thanks

REPLY: I am afraid that for legal reasons I can say little more on the above subject than I have done before.

I would merely say the following:

1. Of interest is that Brian Kennedy, according to a source, bought an entire house in Knutsford in September 2007 and has directed the McCanns private investiagtion operation from there for 6 years

2. The sum total achievement of several very costly private investigations by Kennedy can be summed up as follows: no idea who the abductor might be; no idea where Madeleine might have been taken; at least 21 different suspects/persons of interest/people we wish to eliminate from our investigation identified, 19 of them men, 2 women

3. The people appointed by Brian Kennedy included Metodo 3 - who have a very controversial past and present history, of whom: Antonio Giminez Raso - in jail 2008 to 2012 on suspicion of involvement with a 27-strong vicious criminal drugs-dealing gang; Francisco Marco - arrested this year for illegally taping private conversations, and Julian Peribanez - has recently admitted illegally taping private conversations and is awaiting sentence - he also employed serial con-man and fraudster Kevin Halligen who was jailed 2009-2013 for a $2 million fraud

4. On 13 November 2007 it is on record that Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarate in Portugal. When news of that meeting leaked out in the Portuguese press 2 weeks later, he claimed that he had gone out there to 'offer Murat a job on his team helping to find Madeleine'. Whether that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, let others decide.

by Romario 20.11.13 16:03

Dear Tony, tank you for your reply, I see that you are unfortunately quite gagged.

Reading the book on Murat was like reading a Ruth Rendell novel with a very great need to read between the lines and in which there was no ending; for these reasons I was very interested in your views.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your work on this case; as I and various people on Facebook were saying the other day, the lucidity, clairty and logic of your arguments are very compelling; and your fight for truth in face of the injustices that have been put your way is commendable.

by Guest 20.11.13 18:07

jeanmonroe wrote:
sami wrote:Recent tweet

@Justice_forum: Day 9 of the #McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral libel trial in Lisbon sees McCann lawyer Isabel Duarte demanding proof of royalties paid to Amaral.
Perhaps Izzy Bizzy THINKS she is the 'Judge' now!

I demand, she grows up! (sorry)

Didn't Stuart Hall, convicted child molester, when he was first arrested, but out on bail, TRANSFER his house any everything into his wifes name?

He was a very busy man before his court appearance 'moving stuff'.

Apparently, when he gets out he'll be a 'guest' in his old, and SAME, house, now in his wife's 'name'. (£1.5 million house!)

A similar looking case here in brave little Belgium

The long time partner of child-kill Marc Dutroux transferred all her assets during her trial to somewhere else.
Including an house, or so I believe.

Who assisted/advised her? Her lawyers? God only knows. Perhaps she figured it out herself.

Now its in the papers here, she wants to start studying law. In order to become a legal assistant, as she may not be admitted to the Bar

Please recall: this is the woman, who knew Marc Dutroux had incarcerated two children, around 6-7 yrs old in a dungeon below one of his many (?) houses;

She knew

She knew he was in prison;

She could have warned any one at any one time, telling them these two children were in that cellar

She did nothing

The two children starved to death in an unlit, unheated cellar of approx 1 meter by 1.80 meter;

For weeks

Now, again: the very woman who could have walked over to the local police station, if she was too much of a coward to descend into that cellar in person, and release these two kids, is now applying to the Belgian authorities to be allowed to start studying law.

Sweet Jesus have mercy

Pope Francis, may you live into perpetuity, forever

Cleanse us from this murderous ilk

by Guest 20.11.13 18:25

Portia, if IIRC she was released from prison to go live in a monastery. But then, again IIRC, that one was closed down. And she went where? I agree she's a monster. She could - at least - have saved those two children's lives censored

by Romario 20.11.13 19:06

Does anyone know what the exact implications of Amaral winning this case are? I would assume it would mean he could publsih the book in Portugal. But what about the rest of the world and specifically the UK?

Also, I'm very interesteed in understanding the mechanics of how 'rich people buy justice'. Surely the judge is always impartial; and even if your lawyers aren't as good as Carter-Ruck's for example, if the truth lies heavily in your favour, surely justice has to prevail. So how exactly do they do it?

by Guest 20.11.13 19:13

Romario wrote:Does anyone know what the exact implications of Amaral winning this case are? I would assume it would mean he could publsih the book in Portugal. But what about the rest of the world and specifically the UK?

Also, I'm very interesteed in understanding the mechanics of how 'rich people buy justice'. Surely the judge is always impartial; and even if your lawyers aren't as good as Carter-Ruck's for example, if the truth lies heavily in your favour, surely justice has to prevail. So how exactly do they do it?

The book has been published and sold since 2008. Just not published in UK so all other countries can read it except us.

by Guest 20.11.13 19:20

Romario wrote:Does anyone know what the exact implications of Amaral winning this case are? I would assume it would mean he could publsih the book in Portugal. But what about the rest of the world and specifically the UK?

Also, I'm very interesteed in understanding the mechanics of how 'rich people buy justice'. Surely the judge is always impartial; and even if your lawyers aren't as good as Carter-Ruck's for example, if the truth lies heavily in your favour, surely justice has to prevail. So how exactly do they do it?

***
With due respect, you must have missed some things.

The book WAS published in Portugal, then banned, then allowed again by 3 judges [who IMO wrote the best text ever regarding this case ...]. It was furthermore published in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark [and maybe others ?], without being banned. I guess the McCs took action, when primo the royalties of the book were important enough to be worthwhile to be ceased, but secundo more importantly when there was talk of a published English version ... You make of that what you will ...

by Romario 20.11.13 19:34

Thanks Candyfloss and Chatelaine. So was it published in the US then? I thought Pat Brown's book was banned in both the UK and US. It's amazing to think that even after being published in all those countries it just hasn't influenced public opinion in any major way in this country, but then I guess that's due to the cultural imperviousness we suffer from. But it does make you wonder whether or not the publication of Amaral's book in the UK would make much difference. I had previously thought this might be the straw that broke the camel's back but maybe not.

by Guest 20.11.13 19:36

No, it was not published in the US either. IMO an [published] English version is what worries them most ... IMO, I cannot repeat it often enough ...

by Guest 20.11.13 19:43

Châtelaine wrote:No, it was not published in the US either. IMO an [published] English version is what worries them most ... IMO, I cannot repeat it often enough ...

What would happen to a concerned individual who started leaving copies lying around?

by Romario 20.11.13 19:45

Châtelaine wrote:No, it was not published in the US either. IMO an [published] English version is what worries them most ... IMO, I cannot repeat it often enough ...

It would certainly be interesting. How the papers would cover it would be unclear. They might persist with their current line; but then again they might have to abandon ship as it were.

by Smokeandmirrors 20.11.13 19:52

Châtelaine wrote:No, it was not published in the US either. IMO an [published] English version is what worries them most ... IMO, I cannot repeat it often enough ...

Agree with you Chatelaine, printed in English and read, it would be game over for the McCanns and the Fund. Most sentient beings in this country know there is something "iffy" going on, even if it is to question why after all these years so much money - not forgetting we are in times of cut-backs - is being spent on one individual, when other cases never get this and when basic medical provision is worsening for all etc. The types of TV presenters and news outlets who are in the "poor McCanns" camp are pitching to the lowest common denominator, and those who are not going to analyse or make a difference to truth.

In other words, bring Amarals analysis to the thinking public and there will be an outcry amongst the sentient population who will see the whole sham for what it is, and it would cause a crisis.

by Guest 20.11.13 19:58

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:No, it was not published in the US either. IMO an [published] English version is what worries them most ... IMO, I cannot repeat it often enough ...
What would happen to a concerned individual who started leaving copies lying around?

***
I know of some people having left an A-4 with "questions" in Kate's bewk, before returning it to the library from which they lent it ... big grin

by haroldd 20.11.13 20:09

AndyB wrote:Why would the judge order this if she wasn't going to find for the McCann's?

Because ID requested it, and the judge mustn't make her decision on what verdict to bring until all the evidence is in. Any judge who suggests she's done so (except in behind-the-scenes 'indications'!) at any time before all the evidence is in is showing prejudice. I don't think there is much in this story. If TM win, then maybe it would be normal (I don't know enough about Portuguese law to say) for the amount ordered to be paid by GA to be stated in the same judgment in which the judge names the winning party. And maybe ID suggested that GA may have lied about how much money he has made. Something like that. The claimants are after all seeking to paint him as a scoundrel.

I reckon the reason for the application for the order is probably so that it can be used as TM PR in the British media.

Agreed with what others have said about how it hits you, reading a newspaper or watching TV after years of not doing so. (I stopped with newspapers in 2006 and have never had a TV.)

by canada12 20.11.13 21:02

Can I ask if it's normal in Portugal for a libel trial to be heard in fits and starts like this, over a long period of time, not consecutive days? It just seems as if there's a lot of stopping and starting, instead of having it all go over a few days at the same time. Is this the usual way trials are conducted in Portugal or is it unusual? Just wondering if there's some deliberate stalling going on....? Thanks.