Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

ultimaThule wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.

From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors. 

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it. 

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

PeterMac wrote:Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Cristobell wrote:

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

It couldn't Noddy.  Cadaverine takes approx 2 hours to develop, and there were strong dog alerts in two places, behind the sofa, and in the wardrobe.  It was also detected on 'Cuddle Cat' the toy Kate carried with her as a prop for months on end.  They must then find an explanation for the cadaver alerts in the car the McCanns hired 28 days after Madeleine disappeared.  That there was an odour in the car is beyond doubt, a neighbour saw the boot open day and night, and the helpful John Wright who also used the car, mentioned the rotting garbage, full nappies and blood dripping meat they regularly carried in the boot.  

Not only does death in the apartment implicate the McCanns, it implicates their friends too, Matt especially, who said he did the 9.30 check and all was well.  He specifically mentioned that he did not see Maddie, but he also did not see a murder that must have been taking place at the time he made the check.  Which could actually put him in the frame for murder, but he only had 5 minutes in which to do it and return to the table, but in fairness, it was 3 minutes longer than an abductor had.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

He's still a Lord though.

Commit perjury, go to prison, do half the sentence, write more books and continue to be a peer of the realm!

Sorry, I can't help but edit to add this from wiki

Prison
Archer was sent to Belmarsh Prison, a Category "A" prison, but was moved to Wayland Prison, a Category "C" prison in Norfolk, on 9 August 2001. Despite automatically qualifying as a category "D" prisoner given it was a first conviction and he did not pose serious risk of harm to the public, his status as such was suspended pending a police investigation into allegations about his Kurdish charity. He was then transferred to HM Prison North Sea Camp, an open prison, in October 2001. From there he was let out to work at the Theatre Royal in Lincoln, and allowed occasional home visits. Media reports claimed he had been abusing this privilege by attending lunches with friends, including former Education Secretary Gillian Shephard. In September 2002 he was transferred to a Category "B" prison, Lincoln, for a month, before returning to the Category "D" HM Prison Hollesley Bay in Suffolk.

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

aiyoyo wrote:

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Impossible !  What about the cadaverine on the pants of Ganga ?
How to explain that ?

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.

It must be one of those oldy worldy words that no-one uses anymore, because in 20+ years as a legal secretary working in and around Royal Courts of Justice and working for lawyers and barristers, I never heard it once, though I vaguely remember it from David Copperfield.

canada12 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Impossible !  What about the cadaverine on the pants of Ganga ?
How to explain that ?

Quite obviously whoever took her stopped to try on Kate's Pants of Ganga before they left 5A... :-)

tigger wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.

It must be one of those oldy worldy words that no-one uses anymore, because in 20+ years as a legal secretary working in and around Royal Courts of Justice and working for lawyers and barristers, I never heard it once, though I vaguely remember it from David Copperfield.

Despite being 'foreign' i do know what 'plaint' means and some  15 years ago found the term ' seisin' in my conveyance contract.  This  mediaeval word pleased me no end and I happened to know the meaning of it.

These terms are no doubt also in use in Portuguese law.

SEISIN

A legal concept from early English property law that continues to influence certain concepts in the modern law of real property and is thus helpful and, at times, essential to understanding this area of the law. In brief, the term refers to the possession of land.  However, the nature of this possession is a complex matter deserving a full academic explanation.  In early English property law, a landholder was considered "seised of" his estate- an idea which somewhat overlaps with the modern meaning of ownership- but differs in a number of respects.  Seisin was passed through a ceremony known as "livery of seisin".

Miraflores wrote:I assumed by murder you meant that MO would have seen burglar/spottyman/tractorman/UncleTomCobbleyAndAll, accidentally killing her.

Cristobell wrote:

Miraflores wrote:I assumed by murder you meant that MO would have seen burglar/spottyman/tractorman/UncleTomCobbleyAndAll, accidentally killing her.

Yes.  Madeleine was alive at 9.10 when Gerry saw her, so the murder/cleanup/coverup must have occurred after that, Matt checked on the children at 9.30.

russiandoll wrote:I am puzzled by your claim, too, Cristobell, as we only have Gerry's word for that. I would not trust anyone who spoke about checking his children on a holiday starting at the end of April, but who only put his head through to LOOK into the room for the first time at approx. 9.05 May 3rd.

russiandoll wrote:I am puzzled by your claim, too, Cristobell, as we only have Gerry's word for that. I would not trust anyone who spoke about checking his children on a holiday starting at the end of April, but who only put his head through to LOOK into the room for the first time at approx. 9.05 May 3rd.

canada12 wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

noddy100 wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly!  And I'm sure there are plenty of others.  They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Impossible !  What about the cadaverine on the pants of Ganga ?
How to explain that ?

Quite obviously   whoever took her stopped to try on Kate's Pants of Ganga before they left 5A... :-)

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I am puzzled by your claim, too, Cristobell, as we only have Gerry's word for that. I would not trust anyone who spoke about checking his children on a holiday starting at the end of April, but who only put his head through to LOOK into the room for the first time at approx. 9.05 May 3rd.

We can only go by the statements of the McCanns and Tapas group Russiandoll, its all we have.  Gerry claims Madeleine was alive at 9.10, therefore if she died in the apartment, it must have happened after that.

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I am puzzled by your claim, too, Cristobell, as we only have Gerry's word for that. I would not trust anyone who spoke about checking his children on a holiday starting at the end of April, but who only put his head through to LOOK into the room for the first time at approx. 9.05 May 3rd.

We can only go by the statements of the McCanns and Tapas group Russiandoll, its all we have.  Gerry claims Madeleine was alive at 9.10, therefore if she died in the apartment, it must have happened after that.