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

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by MRNOODLES on 01.06.14 21:55

So this must have been the ace up Dr A's sleeve.

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 21:56

Oh Joy.  It has finally come out .
Many of us have been bursting for some weeks  !

canada12 wrote:  Just had an interesting thought.
If it can be proved that Kate and Gerry knew they did not have the UK court's authorization to sue on behalf of Madeleine...
...and if it can be proved that this was NOT an oversight, but a clear case of going ahead with the libel lawsuit regardless...
Could GA sue Kate and Gerry for malicious prosecution?

Or Kate and Gerry sue for gross incompetence, and leading them on, and taking their MONEY . . . their OWN PORTUGUESE Lawyer . . .?
But they didn't sue Halligen, nor M3, nor Mitchell, nor any of the others who have given them such spectacularly bad advice, assistance and "help" . .

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 22:00

@MRNOODLES wrote:So this must have been the ace up Dr A's sleeve.
Not necessarily the Ace !

Possibly a Knave, thrown in to disconcert the other player into believing he has more.
It depends what is on the table already

Final adresses by all sides are still a long way off . . .

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 01.06.14 22:24

Great news,hopefully this ridiculous case will be ending soon in Goncalos favour.

One question if anyone can answer.

Even though the claim they made on Madeleine may be disregarded, could their own claims still stand. I would hate to think that after the terrible witnesses throughout the trial and the information coming from the court that they still stand a chance.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by margaret on 01.06.14 22:26

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”. 


It would be highly ironic if it is something discovered among these documents that has led to the current activity.

I keep re- reading it but to me it's referring to the mcs trying to get hold of the secret papers that LP had.

Does Gerry really have to go back in person to deliver this statement before the court?

That will be interesting if he does have to.....

margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Cristobell on 01.06.14 22:29

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@stillsloppingout wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Bang goes about one-fifth of their claim, I think.

Down to a mere 950,000 euros or so now (about £800,000)
Question: Possibly TB could answer .

Is it usual practice for a request for this type of document to be:

1) difficult to obtain for an overseas court?

2) an expensive undertaking ? 
 
I will reserve my judgement until I receive responses to this request.
First of all, I have now established that the McCanns' claim on behalf of Madeleine was actually 500,000 euros - much more than I'd remembered. I will say more about this in a moment.

Before answering your question (which I've only just seen), 'stillsloppingout', it is necessary to explain a few basic things about Wardship Proceedings, a legal procedure I've been involved in professionally many times in the past, both as a child care social worker, and later, as a solicitor.

Before doing so, it is necessary to say, once again, that in so many respects this case is wholly unique, so when, SSO, you refer to 'usual practice', there is no 'usual practice' in a case like this.

The basic purpose of making a child a Ward of Court (i.e. taking Wardship Proceedings, as the McCanns did) - or a Ward of the High Court to be precise - is to give the Court a range of extra powers in the interests of the child's welfare.

A common example would be where a parent refuses a medical procedure which is necessary for the child's health or life: e.g. Jehovah's Witness parents refusing a life-saving blood transfusion. The High Court steps in and orders the transfusion where the parents have refused.

Another basic principle where a child is a Ward of Court is that nobody - whether parent or anybody else - may take any significant step on behalf of the child without first getting the permission of the High Court. 

And this may be one of the things that is exercising Dr Amaral and the Lisbon Civil Court. As far as I can ascertain, Amaral's lawyer has asked a simple question of the High Court: did the McCanns ask permission of the High Court before making their libel claim on Madeleine's behalf in June 2009? I think the answer to that is probably: 'No'. 

Now, whether or not the Lisbon Civil Court take account of that, is another matter. They could take one of a range of views, for example:

1) 'The High Court hasn't given you permission to make this claim, therefore we're refusing it

2) We wiil allow the claim if the High Court gives permission, or, say

3) We will make an award, but only pay it to you if Madeleine is found alive.

Now, turning to your question, ShuBob has just now provided her answer (and I think she has some legal knowledge so is probably well qualified to answer):

I have to say that huge credit goes to Amaral for obtaining the documentation. It couldn't have been easy especially given how difficult the PJ found it trying to obtain documents before the case was archived.

I agree. For example, Amaral's Solicitor would have to find out which court made the order, where to write to etc. He would have to get a translator to translate his letter into English. In all probability the High Court would require Amaral to make a formal application in the Wardship Proceedings to be heard, as he is a third party (only the McCanns are parties to the proceedings). That would mean filling in a Court application form, again in English, paying any fee (the fees a high) and possibly, even (we don't know) attending a hearing in London. It's by no means a simple matter of putting through a 'phone call to a clerk in the High Court saying: "Oh, could you please tell me if the McCanns got permission to make a legal claim on Madeleine's behalf in the Lisbon High Court?"

I move on now to the amounts claimed by the McCanns in their libel claim

The made the following claims for damages:

Madeleine: 500,000 euros (5/12ths)
Gerry: 250,000 euros (5/24)
Kate: 250,000 euros (5/24)
Sean: 100,000 euros (one twelfth)
Amelie: 100,000 euros (one twelfth)

TOTAL: 1,200,000 euros

Now, at the time of their claim, the £ was trading at 1 euro = 85p.

That made the value of their claim £1,020,000.

However, since then the cost of living has risen in the past 5 years by around 18%. In real terms, therefore, the value of their claim has now been reduced to about £840,000.

But in addition to that, the value of the £ has dropped from 85p to around 81p, a drop of nearly 5%.

That reduces the total value of their claim from £840,000 to around £790,800. 

IF (and of course we don't know yet) the Lisbon Civil Court knocks out the claim for Madeleine, that removes 5/12ths (five twelfths) of the McCanns' total claim, thus, take off 5/12ths from £790,800, and we are left with just £461,300 - less than half of the value of their original claim.

That would then be split as follows:

£164,750 - Gerry
£164,750 - Kate
£65,900 - Sean
£65,900 - Amelie.

The only other thing to say is to point out the disgraceful way the Portuguese judicial system has been unable to deliver a verdict to the two parties after the lapse of a full 5 years, and the utter absurdity of deeming this book to be libellous given that it is freely on sale in 9 separate languages in over 30 countries across the globe - and is available on the internet in English (10th language) by virtue of AnnaEsse's translation. 
In the event of the McCanns losing the libel case, which is more likely, do you know whether the McCanns and their children be liable for costs Tony?  I am not sure how it works in Portugal, or if the children as minors, can have costs awarded against them?

Cristobell

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Montclair on 01.06.14 22:34

@margaret wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”. 


It would be highly ironic if it is something discovered among these documents that has led to the current activity.

I keep re- reading it but to me it's referring to the mcs trying to get hold of the secret papers that LP had.

Does Gerry really have to go back in person to deliver this statement before the court?

That will be interesting if he does have to.....

Gerry does have to attend in person and make a spontaneous statement. He can't read a written statement or use notes as Michael Wright tried to do. I can just imagine him, in his whiny voice, explaining to the judge how they exonerated by the archiving report.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Christina on 01.06.14 23:07

@Montclair wrote:
@margaret wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”. 


It would be highly ironic if it is something discovered among these documents that has led to the current activity.

I keep re- reading it but to me it's referring to the mcs trying to get hold of the secret papers that LP had.

Does Gerry really have to go back in person to deliver this statement before the court?

That will be interesting if he does have to.....

Gerry does have to attend in person and make a spontaneous statement. He can't read a written statement or use notes as Michael Wright tried to do. I can just imagine him, in his whiny voice, explaining to the judge how they exonerated by the archiving report.

That's scary. Very scary. And I can hear him now.. 

The pressure is building for them. I agree with PeterMac that there will probably be more delays. After all, the diggers are at the ready and would Gerry want to be giving a heartfelt statement whilst they're scraping away (somewhere) outside? It feels like something is about to happen. Even if, as observed above, it is the Madeleine part of the claim that is retracted and the rest continues, this is another big hole in their armour. More power to Dr Amaral. He's an impressive individual.

Christina

Posts : 47
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 23:12

Bellisa wrote:Great news,hopefully this ridiculous case will be ending soon in Goncalos favour.

One question if anyone can answer.

Even though the claim they made on Madeleine may be disregarded, could their own claims still stand?
This is Portuguese law, not British - but from what we have read, the issue is whether the McCanns can proceed with their 500,000-euro claim for Madeleine.

There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).

If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 23:16

@Montclair wrote:
Gerry does have to attend in person and make a spontaneous statement. He can't read a written statement or use notes as Michael Wright tried to do. I can just imagine him, in his whiny voice, explaining to the judge how they exonerated by the archiving report.
And let us hope that the judge asks him just ONE question

"If I were to ask you whether you removed Madeleine from the Apartment, would you say 'Yes'?"


Solution
If he did and he tells the truth - he says Yes.
If he did not and he tells the truth - he says NO
If he did and he lies - he then says YES - (because the correct answer was NO, but he is a liar - so he also lies about the answer he would give to the original question!)
If he did not, and he lies, he then says YES

simples !

Judges in the English Courts have frowned on this sort of Cross examination ! ! !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 23:18

@Cristobell wrote:
In the event of the McCanns losing the libel case...do you know whether the McCanns and their children [would] be liable for costs Tony?  I am not sure how it works in Portugal, or if the children, as minors, can have costs awarded against them?

REPLY: Under British law, the invariable rule is: 'Costs follow the event', or, in plain language, the loser pays the winner's costs. There are some exceptions to this, and the costs must be assessed as reasonable.  The two children could NEVER be made to pay for the parents taking and losing a case; it would be only the McCanns who would have to pay any costs.   

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by stillsloppingout on 01.06.14 23:18

So basically the WOC is now / or was , a vehicle to use to throw spanners in the works , to obtain documents that by other means were out of bounds , Did the McC's make her a WOC of there instigation or was that acted upon via the courts, without there consent ? .

stillsloppingout

Posts : 489
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-02-06
Location : N WEST ENGLAND

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 01.06.14 23:22

Thanks tony,

Well if that is the case I would imagine that it'd be a very costly exercise on their part and they may pull out.

We will have to wait and see. I do hope you may be feeling a bit more optimistic now. IMO if there was such high level protection it would have been easy to cobble something together to say they had previously been given permission to claim on Madeleines behalf.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 23:24

@Tony Bennett wrote:There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).
If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

But what claim do the rest of the family have if there is no basis for a claim on behalf of Madeleine.
Surely the whole basis was that the book hindered the 'search' for Madeleine.
In what way are Amelie and Seanie involved in that ?
Ih what way are Katie and Gerry involved in that ?

The whole thing was about Madeleine (wasn't it . . .?) who it seems legally belongs to Her Honour Mrs Justice Hogg,
from the date the parents officially divested themselves of any further "responsibility " - using that term in its loosest and vaguest sense, of course.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 23:25

@stillsloppingout wrote:So basically the WOC is now / or was, a vehicle to use to throw spanners in the works, to obtain documents that by other means were out of bounds. Did the McC's make her a WOC of their '[own] instigation or was that acted upon via the courts, without their consent?
They were put up to it by the mysterious men from the International Family Law Group (you know, the paralegal, the barrister and the bloke called 'Hugh'), or so we are told in Dr Kate McCann's 'madeleine', pp. 124-127.

It was the McCanns' application to the High Court, supported in the court by IFLG.

And, yes, so far as I know, they have only ever used these Wardship Proceedings in order to try to prise out information from e.g. the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 01.06.14 23:25

I can imagine a couple spitting feathers at the moment ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by missmar1 on 01.06.14 23:27

@PeterMac wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).
If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

But what claim do the rest of the family have if there is no basis for a claim on behalf of Madeleine.
Surely the whole basis was that the book hindered the 'search' for Madeleine.
In what way are Amelie and Seanie involved in that ?
Ih what way are Katie and Gerry involved in that ?

The whole thing was about Madeleine (wasn't it . . .?)  who it seems legally belongs to Her Honour Mrs Justice Hogg,
from the date the parents officially divested themselves of any further "responsibility " - using that term in its loosest and vaguest sense, of course.
 Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc ? what would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 23:33

@PeterMac wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).
If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

But what claim do the rest of the family have if there is no basis for a claim on behalf of Madeleine.
Surely the whole basis was that the book hindered the 'search' for Madeleine.

In what way are Amelie and Seanie involved in that ?
Ih what way are Katie and Gerry involved in that ?

The whole thing was about Madeleine (wasn't it . . .?)  who it seems legally belongs to Her Honour Mrs Justice Hogg,
from the date the parents officially divested themselves of any further "responsibility " - using that term in its loosest and vaguest sense, of course.
Far be it from me to explain the McCanns' possible reasoning for claiming 100,000 euros each for Sean and Amelie, but I think it would go something like this.

"Not only did the book hinder the search for Madeleine, it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering. Say about a quarter of a million euros' worth each. And of course our dear twins have suffered too; they feel the loss of Madeleine very keenly, they were very upset about Madeleine's abduction, and had it not been for what our reputation manager once referred to as 'that work' by Goncalo Amaral, very probably Madeleine would have been found alive - and therefore the twins' suffering could have been much reduced. Say one hundred grand euros for each of them"

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by tasprin on 01.06.14 23:36

@Montclair wrote:
@Mirage wrote:
@Montclair wrote:
@canada12 wrote:
@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'


A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.

Maybe that's why he's a cardiologist... he's fascinated by people that do.

tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 23:37

@missmar1 wrote:
 Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc? What would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?
In this case, the Court could make orders.

It could, for example (if appropriate of course), order the parents to receive information from a source.

Or it could take powers to prevent publication of an article which would damage Madeleine or the search for her. 

The parents would be acting on behalf of Madeleine and asking the Court to do things which they alone could not do.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 23:37

@stillsloppingout wrote:So basically the WOC is now / or was , a vehicle to use to throw spanners in the works , to obtain documents that by other means were out of bounds , Did the McC's make her a WOC of there instigation or was that acted upon via the courts, without there (their) consent ? .
It is not a spanner in the works. It is fundamental to an understanding of how the McCanns have tried to manipulate the press, public sentiment, and even the law for many years,
and now seem to be failing .
You need to read back some years, but I am sure the relevant documents are on this site.
Try the search engine top right.
The simple answer is - The McCanns applied for WOC, and it was granted.  In 2008.
They knew that.
Their Portuguese lawyer knew that
All their English lawyers knew that
The Trustees of the "Fund" knew that
The lawyers and accountants acting for the "Fund" knew that
Everyone in the Western world with half a brain cell and an interest in the fate of a little girl knew that.

But someone has nevertheless been prepared to fund this nonsense

Dr Amaral has had to go through a long legal process to PROVE that.
And now he has.

Courts are not allowed to assume things.  
There is a very limited list in English law of things about which a Court my "Take Judicial Notice"
And that list includes the number of hours in a day, days in a week, direction of rising of the sun . . .tides. .  but not weather conditions, which have to be spelled out = proved.
They cannot assume knowledge of very much more.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by 1soapy on 01.06.14 23:41

Just seems unfairly weighted, regarding costs, but it’s probably my ignorance and I have no intention of anyone supplying time here on an explanation which could be better spent.


Children (who as of now are not of a mind to have, use, spend or understand funds or libel) can personally receive money, but if the case is found to be null and costs go to the defendant, children are not obliged to pay these costs?


Huge loss of incentive here and a motivation to abuse/bring claims of this sort because it’s a win/win or lose/lose situation (depending on which side you’re on).


Is this justified perhaps because the claim is that the children are affected NOW (by the libel) and therefore are claiming that they are justified in receiving money if found to be guilty of libel, but naturally, as children, if libel is not shown, costs are not realistic as kids don’t have money.


Seems open to abuse.


Maybe better to have the parents claim (and be wholly responsible) on their behalf. Win, put money in holding until of age or use to support the affects on their lives. Lose, cough up.

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Miraflores on 01.06.14 23:44

I certainly feel that the twins are wholly innocent victims and have suffered, but not because of Amaral's book, or because they miss Madeleine. They would have been too young at the time to remember much of Madeleine.

Where they have suffered is from their parents constantly going on television to whine about how no one is looking for Madeleine (including said parents, but we will let that pass). They went off to Amsterdam and Sweden to promote the book, both times in term time as far as I recall, so who was looking after the twins then? Then there is filling up the twins heads with stories about monsters coming to snatch them.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by PeterMac on 01.06.14 23:48


"Not only did the book hinder the search for Madeleine, it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering. Say about a quarter of a million euros' worth each. And of course our dear twins have suffered too; they feel the loss of Madeleine very keenly, they were very upset about Madeleine's abduction, and had it not been for what our reputation manager once referred to as 'that work' by Goncalo Amaral, very probably Madeleine would have been found alive - and therefore the twins' suffering could have been much reduced. Say one hundred grand euros for each of them"
it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering.
Like this

" />

certainly not this

" />
and definitely not this

" />

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by missmar1 on 01.06.14 23:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@missmar1 wrote:
 Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc? What would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?
In this case, the Court could make orders.

It could, for example (if appropriate of course), order the parents to receive information from a source.

Or it could take powers to prevent publication of an article which would damage Madeleine or the search for her. 

The parents would be acting on behalf of Madeleine and asking the Court to do things which they alone could not do.

Ah, I see, thank you .

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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