McCanns to appear in libel trial on Monday 16 June

 ultimaThule wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:
hi kevmack, i think what the mccanns are claiming is that the book has informed the general public that MBM is dead and so they (the general public) will not search for MBM, or at the least keep an eye out for her whilst abroad in case they see her, hence damaging the "search". as someone who has read his book, i doubt i would "search" for her...would you just on that evidence alone?  I think this may be the whole crux of their libel case.. someone please tell me im wrong tho!

Right, but 'harming the search' is not the same thing as libel.  From a legal point of view, 'harming the search' is irrelevant - it seems to have been a PR device used by Team McCann to legitimize their libel action - so that they didn't look too grasping and money-obsessed.   For the same reason they had Madeleine (and the twins) on the libel action as plaintiffs.  With Maddie now officially off the docket, then the 'harming the search' becomes even more irrelevant (if that's possible).   This is a simple libel action - either the book is libellous against the parents or it is not.  Maddie nor the twins were never remotely libelled and as such could never really 'win' their respective claims.

During the trial itself, the McCanns then focussed on the harm and anguish it caused them.  But again, even a high level of harm and anguish does not make it libellous.  If the book is truthful, then it cannot be libel.  However that wasn't the defence.  The defence was that the book simply narrated the views of Amaral and the views of the investigation. And if THAT is true then he should be found not-guilty.   But as any lawyer will tell you, many a good case has been lost on a technicality, so nobody will be celebrating (on either side) until the verdict is announced.

is MBM officially of the docket now, i thought we were still waiting for the judge to decide on that? i thought that  the mccanns had 30 days to produce the relevant WOC documents?  please forgive if im behind on this point.

You're not behind on this point, cs.  MBM is not officially 'off the docket' and won't be unless her parents are unable to provide properly sworn and attested documentation from the High Court in London to the effect that consent has been given for them to embark on libel proceedings on her behalf.

Following what should have taken place today, the Lisbon court was scheduled to hear closing arguments after which the McCanns will have 30 days to produce the required documentation before the verdict is handed down.

As the McCanns were made aware of this ruling some weeks ago, it's to be hoped that they have already obtained the necessary paperwork and that it will be submitted to the judge prior to revised hearing date of July 8 in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in judgement being given.

Brian Griffin wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:

Bellisa wrote:only getting the chance to skim posts now.

What a strange day it was. Am hoping goncalo has something up his sleeve.

Great to see the media reporting in full(even mentioning clarries statement/order to the press not to repeat the claims)!

I do not believe GA would have spoken about the cremation unless he was certain about this - if this can be proven then...

Ask the priest, Sandra. You know, the one that went effin' ape-$hit over something to do with the couple in question and was then conveniently removed.

tiny wrote:@Bishop Brennan, the only way he could lose this case would be if the judge has been got at.

Thank you Ultimathule,  I do wish people would stop stating something as "fact" when it is no such thing, thus causing timewasting and thread derailing. Also i have to say that this thread has  a certain "hate" thread running through it that leaves me a bit uncomfortable (and im sure others too) and that the thread could function perfectly well without it. constant effing and jeffing and snipping at peoples appearance just reduces it to playground level. I know its been said before but we really dont need to lower ourselves to the same level as the pro's. !!! 

kevmack wrote:Shubob, I took Kate's line about it happening to other children, as meaning that they had been found many years later.  Ironically enough though, I don't recall many long term searches, involving numerous police departments to find Jacyee Duggard, Michelle, Knight, Amanda Berry, Gina Dejesus, Natashca Kampusch, Elizabeth Fritzl etc, they all escaped as a result of their own efforts, and of course were all much older than Madeleine when they disappeared, so not really comparable..but you know what the McCanns are like..waiting to jump on anyone else's story if it suits their agenda.

kevmack wrote:

Thank you Ultimathule,  I do wish people would stop stating something as "fact" when it is no such thing, thus causing timewasting and thread derailing. Also i have to say that this thread has  a certain "hate" thread running through it that leaves me a bit uncomfortable (and im sure others too) and that the thread could function perfectly well without it. constant effing and jeffing and snipping at peoples appearance just reduces it to playground level. I know its been said before but we really dont need to lower ourselves to the same level as the pro's. !!! 

Sorry, who is stating things as fact when they are not, and how would that be considered to be time wasting or thread derailing?  Also not sure what you mean about this being a hate thread..I don't think I've seen anyone swear, sniping or any other type of rudeness, in fact this thread has been, thankfully, totally clear of that, I haven't seen one impolite disagreement at all.

aquila wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Newintown wrote:
It was GA who had to apply for the documentation regarding Madeleine's Ward of Court status.  It cost him a lot of money, there was a request on his website for help to fund this, which was achieved and he was able to get the documentation necessary.  It was reported a week or two ago.

However, something else must have cropped up in the meantime for him to delay the court case today, perhaps something more pressing which may throw the whole thing out off kilter.

That's right.  As of the judge's ruling of 1st June 2014, Madeleine is officially 'off the docket' UNLESS the McCanns can come up with something from the UK court that owns her wardship. In theory they had 30 days from today.  So presumably they will have 30 days from the postponed date.   If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter" (Maddie).

I'm a bit confused now.

ultimaThule has written the opposite

quote:

You're not behind on this point, cs.  MBM is not officially 'off the docket' and won't be unless her parents are unable to provide properly sworn and attested documentation from the High Court in London to the effect that consent has been given for them to embark on libel proceedings on her behalf.

Following what should have taken place today, the Lisbon court was scheduled to hear closing arguments after which the McCanns will have 30 days to produce the required documentation before the verdict is handed down.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

aquila wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Newintown wrote:
It was GA who had to apply for the documentation regarding Madeleine's Ward of Court status.  It cost him a lot of money, there was a request on his website for help to fund this, which was achieved and he was able to get the documentation necessary.  It was reported a week or two ago.

However, something else must have cropped up in the meantime for him to delay the court case today, perhaps something more pressing which may throw the whole thing out off kilter.

That's right.  As of the judge's ruling of 1st June 2014, Madeleine is officially 'off the docket' UNLESS the McCanns can come up with something from the UK court that owns her wardship. In theory they had 30 days from today.  So presumably they will have 30 days from the postponed date.   If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter" (Maddie).

I'm a bit confused now.

ultimaThule has written the opposite

quote:

You're not behind on this point, cs.  MBM is not officially 'off the docket' and won't be unless her parents are unable to provide properly sworn and attested documentation from the High Court in London to the effect that consent has been given for them to embark on libel proceedings on her behalf.

Following what should have taken place today, the Lisbon court was scheduled to hear closing arguments after which the McCanns will have 30 days to produce the required documentation before the verdict is handed down.

Actually ultimaThule is saying the same thing, except using a double negative which can be confusing and in this case is slightly inaccurate. The full details of the judge's 1st June ruling can be read here and should clarify the situation fully:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/86june14/pjga_01_06_2014.htm

Basically she was saying that because Maddie is a ward of court the parents cannot bring a libel suit on her behalf.  Only the court can do that, and right now the McCanns do not have the court's authorisation.  They have 30 days to get that authorisation or else the defendants will be found 'not guilty' by default.

Brian Griffin wrote:

maebee wrote:

kevmack wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:YES she's says 'Maddie' NOT 'Madeleine'

1min 37 secs.

Hmmm, not so sure about that Jean, I think it's just her usual strangulated pronunciation, Mad-lin, as opposed to saying it with all three syllables, Mad-el-eine as it should be, Gerry's bad for that as well, only his is more like Mad-lun..

Yep. She said "Mad-lin". There was a lot of "mad" in KM today

I can't stand the way Gerry says 'Madeleine'. It kind of drops about 5 tones for the 'ma' and then comes up for the 'delin' bit. Having siad that, it's probably a positive that he actually has some tune to his voice: I find he kind of drones monotonously, like a bagpipe - you know, a bag of wind. I realy have to concentrate to listen to him and even then he just lulls me into boredom.

Bishop Brennan wrote:SNIP

Actually ultimaThule is saying the same thing, except using a double negative which can be confusing and in this case is slightly inaccurate. The full details of the judge's 1st June ruling can be read here and should clarify the situation fully:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/86june14/pjga_01_06_2014.htm

Basically she was saying that because Maddie is a ward of court the parents cannot bring a libel suit on her behalf.  Only the court can do that, and right now the McCanns do not have the court's authorisation.  They have 30 days to get that authorisation or else the defendants will be found 'not guilty' by default.

ShuBob wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:SNIP

Actually ultimaThule is saying the same thing, except using a double negative which can be confusing and in this case is slightly inaccurate. The full details of the judge's 1st June ruling can be read here and should clarify the situation fully:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/86june14/pjga_01_06_2014.htm

Basically she was saying that because Maddie is a ward of court the parents cannot bring a libel suit on her behalf.  Only the court can do that, and right now the McCanns do not have the court's authorisation.  They have 30 days to get that authorisation or else the defendants will be found 'not guilty' by default.

My understanding is that they have 30 days to produce said authorisation from the libel case files which should ALREADY have been applied for before they brought the case in 2009. That is, the authorisation should be dated no later than the date they initiated legal proceedings in this libel case.

ShuBob wrote:

kevmack wrote:

Thank you Ultimathule,  I do wish people would stop stating something as "fact" when it is no such thing, thus causing timewasting and thread derailing. Also i have to say that this thread has  a certain "hate" thread running through it that leaves me a bit uncomfortable (and im sure others too) and that the thread could function perfectly well without it. constant effing and jeffing and snipping at peoples appearance just reduces it to playground level. I know its been said before but we really dont need to lower ourselves to the same level as the pro's. !!! 

Sorry, who is stating things as fact when they are not, and how would that be considered to be time wasting or thread derailing?  Also not sure what you mean about this being a hate thread..I don't think I've seen anyone swear, sniping or any other type of rudeness, in fact this thread has been, thankfully, totally clear of that, I haven't seen one impolite disagreement at all.

Neither have I!

ShuBob wrote:I wonder what Kate was going to say when she twice started her comment with "Either way" and was prevented from completing said comment by her husband.

MaybeMaybenot wrote:It seems to me that they even plan their positions on camera. They appear on TV as if like Ant & Dec. I suppose its because he can squeeze harder with his right hand.

cockerspaniel wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Snip

Neither have I!

well i have read everyword on this thread and there ARE comments about Kmcanns anorexic arms, the constant snipes at her appearance and them being called effing tossers etc.  IF you read ALL the thread you will see them to. i just think this site can do without it as it helps in NO way that i can see. and before you ask me to highlight lines for you im not going to go back tnrough 84  pages to prove my point.. but the comments are there.

with regards to stating things as fact kev mack, you said that MBM was officially of the docket, i thought she wasnt, ultimathule seemed to confirm my view, then someone else i think negated it...hence i am still confused re this point. if you can point me to where it officially says that she is of the docket so i can check for myself, that would be much appreciated. apologies to you KMack if i. wrong.!

sofieellis wrote:

tiny wrote:Just watch the sky video,can any one tell me what Gerry said [email=at@2-13,it]at@2-13,it[/email] sounds to me like seriously injured, but I cant understand Gerry accent.

Do you mean this bit? 

(from the transcript I did above)

Gerry: What is clear is that the searches haven't found any evidence to show that Madeleine has been seriously injured or is dead. So, as far as we're concerned, there is a good chance she's still alive and we have to keep searching for her. That's why we're here.

cockerspaniel wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

kevmack wrote:

Thank you Ultimathule,  I do wish people would stop stating something as "fact" when it is no such thing, thus causing timewasting and thread derailing. Also i have to say that this thread has  a certain "hate" thread running through it that leaves me a bit uncomfortable (and im sure others too) and that the thread could function perfectly well without it. constant effing and jeffing and snipping at peoples appearance just reduces it to playground level. I know its been said before but we really dont need to lower ourselves to the same level as the pro's. !!! 

Sorry, who is stating things as fact when they are not, and how would that be considered to be time wasting or thread derailing?  Also not sure what you mean about this being a hate thread..I don't think I've seen anyone swear, sniping or any other type of rudeness, in fact this thread has been, thankfully, totally clear of that, I haven't seen one impolite disagreement at all.

Neither have I!

well i have read everyword on this thread and there ARE comments about Kmcanns anorexic arms, the constant snipes at her appearance and them being called effing tossers etc.  IF you read ALL the thread you will see them to. i just think this site can do without it as it helps in NO way that i can see. and before you ask me to highlight lines for you im not going to go back tnrough 84  pages to prove my point.. but the comments are there.

with regards to stating things as fact kev mack, you said that MBM was officially of the docket, i thought she wasnt, ultimathule seemed to confirm my view, then someone else i think negated it...hence i am still confused re this point. if you can point me to where it officially says that she is of the docket so i can check for myself, that would be much appreciated. apologies to you KMack if i. wrong.!

Snifferdog wrote:There he goes, parroting old guff again.  No, we already know you're not in Portugal to search for Madeleine!!! You're there to take/steal G.A.'s property.  Does this pair ever listen to themselves?  

tiny wrote:

jack dexter wrote:She definitely showed her true colours today with here suspect temper, the way she spoke to the reporter and the way she looked at gerry when he wouldn't let her speak, she definitely wanted to cause him pain.
One angry woman

More like a time bomb ,  makes you wonder if Madeleine was ever exposed to this temper off kates