Re: McCanns to appear in libel trial on Monday 16 June

by elasticandy 16.06.14 19:15

Markus 2 wrote:The latest delay in the case comes as Mr Amaral made more outlandish claims today about Madeleine's disappearance in an interview with Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha and its sister TV channel CMTV.

The Independant no sympathy for Mr Amaral

and your point is?

by Guest 16.06.14 19:16

Miraflores wrote:Am I alone in thinking that SY have unwittingly played into Amaral's hands? If we had not had two weeks of publicity re the searches would the libel trial have received so much attention?

That's my thoughts too. The McCann's have unwittingly played into his hands too by showing that they can make an appearance for the trial but not the SY/PJ search and then stand on the court steps and give him the best publicity he could have hoped for imo

by ultimaThule 16.06.14 19:17

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.

I am saying no such thing, Bishop as it is incorrect to say that 'only the court' can bring a suit for libel on behalf of one of its Wards when the fact is that, providing prior consent has been obtained from the (High) court to take such an important step in the life of the child, parents can institute legal proceedings on behalf of those of their children who have been made Wards of Court. .

by Miraflores 16.06.14 19:20

Markus 2 wrote:The latest delay in the case comes as Mr Amaral made more outlandish claims today about Madeleine's disappearance in an interview with Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha and its sister TV channel CMTV.

The Independant no sympathy for Mr Amaral

I'm not entirely sure of that: they give the name of Amaral's book, knowing that people will now be able to search on-line for it. They repeat Gerry and Kate's words verbatim - no one has, as yet, glossed over Kate's statements about having to book childcare.

This is all information which just would not have been published a few months ago, when Abduction was the only story in town.

by Bishop Brennan 16.06.14 19:20

cockerspaniel wrote:

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.!

I think this link that will clear up the confusion is this one. It clarifies the judge's official position ref Maddie as a plaintiff. Basically she ruled that the parents are not authorised to bring a suit on her behalf because she is a ward of court.

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

by Tangled Web 16.06.14 19:21

Markus 2 wrote:The latest delay in the case comes as Mr Amaral made more outlandish claims today about Madeleine's disappearance in an interview with Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha and its sister TV channel CMTV.

The Independant no sympathy for Mr Amaral

Well that's not very helpful is it? Directing all of The Independent readers to the CdM article and CMTV, where they can read/hear exactly what Mr Amaral believes! laughat

by elasticandy 16.06.14 19:23

Tangled Web wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:The latest delay in the case comes as Mr Amaral made more outlandish claims today about Madeleine's disappearance in an interview with Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha and its sister TV channel CMTV.

The Independant no sympathy for Mr Amaral

Well that's not very helpful is it? Directing all of The Independent readers to the CdM article and CMTV, where they can read/hear exactly what Mr Amaral believes!

oh ... The Independent a rag where facts never get in the way of a good story.

by cockerspaniel 16.06.14 19:23

kevmack wrote:
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.!
I've said nothing about MBM being off the docket, you asked my opinion about whether the search was hindered and I gave it, pages and pages ago, nothing to do with dockets, the legal jargon is not my thing

As for remarks about Kate McCann, it was she who called the Portuguese Police F*ing T*ssers, in her book no less, so yes, she gets parodied for that, she shouldn't have made the remarks in the first place, about people who were only trying to help her. And I think I've seen one remark about her having anorexic arms, and to be fair, she is thin to the point of anorexia, no idea if she is or not, I don't think talking about how thin she is, is hate speech. As for her general appearance, Kate also dresses up or down depending on what mood she is trying to portray, and yes, we comment on that. But I can truly say that I haven't seen any truly nasty remarks on this thread today.

Don't forget, the McCanns have brought all of this on themselves, they have attacked, abused and been generally vile to anyone who has questioned them, so if karma is now hitting them between the eyes then so be it. We haven't forced them to be in Lisbon spitting feathers today, that was their own doing and they deserve everything they get in terms of criticism as far as I'm concerned, and no, I don't hate them, I don't hate anyone, but I certainly do not think that they deserve any compassion from me, because they haven't shown any, to anyone else.

huge apologies kevmack, it was bishopbrennan who said of the docket remark...my mistake in thinking it was you..sorry.
with regards to the comments..i understand your point entirely, i feel somewhat the same...i just dont think it needs to be expressed on here quite so often is all. it seems most people on here feel some animosity towards them, and we all know that, hence my belief that it dosnt need to be repeated on here. hope this makes sense ! sorry again.

by Markus 2 16.06.14 19:25

elasticandy wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:The latest delay in the case comes as Mr Amaral made more outlandish claims today about Madeleine's disappearance in an interview with Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha and its sister TV channel CMTV.

The Independant no sympathy for Mr Amaral
and your point is?

Independant your choice of reading is it. yawn

by Bishop Brennan 16.06.14 19:26

ultimaThule wrote:

"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."

I am saying no such thing, Bishop as it is incorrect to say that 'only the court' can bring a suit for libel on behalf of one of its Wards when the fact is that, providing prior consent has been obtained from the (High) court to take such an important step in the life of the child, parents can institute legal proceedings on behalf of those of their children who have been made Wards of Court. .

Um, right. The "she" in my post was referring to the judge... Not you. Sorry for the confusion. And as we can read, her ruling was fairly clear in this case.

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

by Newintown 16.06.14 19:27

Ochosi wrote:Just had a chance to watch it. I think at around 1:41, the question is:
"Don't you think he might be in pain too, Mr Amaral" to which Kate replies "Why?".
Apologies for repetition if this has already been cleared up.

Gerry didn't look happy at Kate speaking at any point, I thought.
BBC just managed to do a very good plug for the best seller and the theory that it covers.

Kate feels no pain for anyone, other than herself and that she and G may be found out. The fact that they have frozen GA's assets for 5 years, he has no money to support himself and is living off friends' help shows how cold she is. He has 2 children, but that doesn't deter her from making him "feel pain".

The fact that both her and G made Madeleine "feel pain" doesn't even enter her brain cells, as long as they can make £££££ out of GA. Neither of them seem to have the decency to even admit that Madeleine "felt pain" if she was left alone and had an injury and died in the apartment while there were out wining and dining with friends, or whether she was abducted by a paedophile as GM was so quick to tell everyone but according to GM in his statement today, that there is still no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm (even in the hands of a paedophile, yes, nice try GM but I don't think it washes with most of us. Do you think Madeleine and her paedophile friend will be playing tiddly winks and scrabble by the way, I'm sure Madeleine has been loving every minute of the past 7 years with her paedophile friend).

by tasprin 16.06.14 19:30

ShuBob wrote:
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.!

I thought you were referring to posters sniping amongst themselves.

On the point you raise about commenting on Kate's appearance etc, I actually agree with you.

So do I... but, the f**king tosser comment is often repeated in jest because it is how Kate McCann described a PJ officer and is recorded for posterity in her book "Madeleine".

From 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann:
: «...“Under my breath I found myself whispering, “f*cking tosser, f*cking tosser”. This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘F*cking tosser’…” » Kate McCann in her book titled Madeleine, on the disdain she felt towards the Portuguese police liaison officer
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

by Hicks 16.06.14 19:30

I really hope Goncalo Amaral has an ace up his sleeve. It will be too unbearable if this does not go his way.

As others have picked up on the 'serious injury' comment, it seems relevant somehow. Kate had a temper, who would smash up beds and hit walls? Anger is not the emotion two parents would feel immediately after discovering their child missing, nor saying f******g t****r under your breath when being asked questions about you missing young daughter.

Kate's response to certain questions is telling imo. When asked to give a message to Madeleine she looks really guilty. Also when she says....'Madeleine knows I love her' only then does she shows any real emotion, again looks like guilt.

Tuesday night the crying stopped as the doors were heard opening. Perhaps this was Kate stepping away out on the balcony for some fresh air? What child who has been that distressed for a long period of time stops just like that? I tend to think that Kate McCann was in the apartment when Madeleine was crying. That is why Madeleine was crying for her father as she knew her mother was ignoring her.

GM invited the good looking aerobics instructor to his table at around 9.30. Miss Chekeya did not remember seeing Kate at the table, perhaps she was at the bar? Maybe Kate stormed off furious, she also had been left to see to the children while GM was playing tennis, and now going back the apartment Madeleine is crying non stop....maybe something snapped in Kate.

I think this could be the time Madeleine sadly died and I don't believe it was an accident.

by kevmack 16.06.14 19:36

cockerspaniel wrote:

huge apologies kevmack, it was bishopbrennan who said of the docket remark...my mistake in thinking it was you..sorry.
with regards to the comments..i understand your point entirely, i feel somewhat the same...i just dont think it needs to be expressed on here quite so often is all. it seems most people on here feel some animosity towards them, and we all know that, hence my belief that it dosnt need to be repeated on here. hope this makes sense ! sorry again.

No problem cockerspaniel, the thread is moving very fast and things often get confused with the quotes etc, I know I get confused myself sometimes and trawling back 20 odd pages to find the original can be almost impossible. I do agree that sometimes there are unnecessary comments, that aren't even relevant to the thread content, and do nothing to add to the discussion, sometimes though, how they look gives a good clue as to what is going on in their heads and as such it is relevant to discuss it, in a general way though, not in a nasty, b*tchy way, that's just not necessary, I totally agree. And yes, I do feel animosity towards them, not only because of the way they have treated all of the people who have stood up and questioned them, but also for the utter contempt they have shown towards their little girl, and at that point my animosity and anger just fades into sadness.

Anyway, no need to apologise, it's been a long day in forumland, there's so much going on and lets hope there will be some sort of resolution soon

roses

by JackieL 16.06.14 19:45

Well, gotta say I'm really shocked at what Amaral has done today. From my reading of the case, all I thought he had to do was turn up to win.

I can only assume he's sacked his lawyer 'cos he didn't like the closing argument he was going to make -maybe the lawyer didn't want to include any reference to this latest allegation that Gerry was seen going towards the sea. Who knows?

Anyway, from someone used to Anglo-Saxon rules of justice, I'm worried that Amaral may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hope not. sad

by Newintown 16.06.14 19:53

JackieL wrote:Well, gotta say I'm really shocked at what Amaral has done today. From my reading of the case, all I thought he had to do was turn up to win.

I can only assume he's sacked his lawyer 'cos he didn't like the closing argument he was going to make -maybe the lawyer didn't want to include any reference to this latest allegation that Gerry was seen going towards the sea. Who knows?

Anyway, from someone used to Anglo-Saxon rules of justice, I'm worried that Amaral may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hope not.

I doubt GA would have taken this decision lightly and there must have been something in the wind that made him delay the court proceedings. After all he has £ or Euro 1.5m at stake, he has to get everything right to defeat the McCanns and show the World what they are like and what is behind this libel case..

by Bishop Brennan 16.06.14 19:59

JackieL wrote:Well, gotta say I'm really shocked at what Amaral has done today. From my reading of the case, all I thought he had to do was turn up to win.

I can only assume he's sacked his lawyer 'cos he didn't like the closing argument he was going to make -maybe the lawyer didn't want to include any reference to this latest allegation that Gerry was seen going towards the sea. Who knows?

Anyway, from someone used to Anglo-Saxon rules of justice, I'm worried that Amaral may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hope not.

It's a real puzzler. Maybe the reasons will emerge but for now the main impact is to enrage the McCanns. This provides short-term benefit I guess, but you can be sure that they will now aggressively pursue getting the High Court to provide the paperwork to allow them to put Madeleine's part of the libel suit back in play. And by delaying the hearing, he has given them an extra 10 days in which to do this.

If they are narcissists, then they will have a win at all costs mentality, they will bear grudges, and they will never give up. Enraging or making a narcissist look stupid (in their eyes) will always attract retribution. I suspect the phone-lines to their lawyers are already red hot looking for "revenge" of some kind or other.

I second your hope that this was not a major error of judgement just when things seemed to be going well for him. Surely he wouldn't risk that kind of money unless he had a really good reason....?

by listener 16.06.14 20:04

"Every time we come here, we have to make arrangements for our children to be looked after,....." she bleated!

If they had taken sensible care arrangements for their three toddlers in 2007, they would have saved both Countries millions and not harmed Praia de Luz's tourism.
Not to mention that they would also still have their daughter.
But blaming everyone else is their failing tactic.

It doesn't wash here!

by Guest 16.06.14 20:11

tasprin wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
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.!

I thought you were referring to posters sniping amongst themselves.

On the point you raise about commenting on Kate's appearance etc, I actually agree with you.

So do I... but, the f**king tosser comment is often repeated in jest because it is how Kate McCann described a PJ officer and is recorded for posterity in her book "Madeleine".

From 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann:
: «...“Under my breath I found myself whispering, “f*cking tosser, f*cking tosser”. This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘F*cking tosser’…” » Kate McCann in her book titled Madeleine, on the disdain she felt towards the Portuguese police liaison officer
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

Books name is: madeleine

Not: Madeleine

by Lance De Boils 16.06.14 20:13

Well, well, well.
What a day this turned out to be.

Astonishing that the McCanns can book themselves a trip to Portugal when there's a chance of a big payout, yet were nowhere to be seen when the British and Pt police were out there digging for their missing child.

Then, the audacity of Kate whinging and whining about making childcare arrangements, booking flights and hotels and taking time off work (surely only applying to Gerry, that bit?)

---

Well, Kate and Gerry - it's all of your own doing. YOU brought this court case, YOU. So actually, you DON'T HAVE TO inconvenience yourselves so - you could just DROP IT. YOUR CHOICE.

And if, as Gerry said, your visit to Lisbon today was all about SEARCHING for Madeleine, then I hope you made the most of your unexpected free time and went off to do some ACTUAL searching yourselves. Giving a well-rehearsed sob story in a court room does NOT equal SEARCHING. Searching for money, yes, but your daughter? Most definitely not.

Still, at least more people now will have seen how ugly you both are. And I'm referring to what lies beneath the facade. What an angry pair you are.

---

As for Amaral's stunt this morning - he must have had very good reason. My gut feeling is that he was advised or even told to delay the trial any which way he could. Maybe in ten days time we will understand more. I hope so, anyway.

---

There. That's my take on it all.

by Guest 16.06.14 20:18

Great Post Lance de Boils(I just realised how disgusting that username is:-) )!

That's my gut instinct too,I hope if the PJ & SY have something relevant they will act on it asap.

by **tigger** 16.06.14 20:19

LdB!

portia wrote:

Books name is: madeleine - not: Madeleine

Because it's all about Me, Me, ME!

by Leaser 16.06.14 20:23

I don't get it. I thought the Mccann's were happy to have any information in the news. Why would they think GA is trying to derail their day in Court. He has given them sensational headlines, they should be happy that "Missing Madeline" is in the press. To to keep her fate in the attention of the public. This was their published aim, I believe

smilie

Leaser

by cockerspaniel 16.06.14 20:25

kevmack wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:

huge apologies kevmack, it was bishopbrennan who said of the docket remark...my mistake in thinking it was you..sorry.
with regards to the comments..i understand your point entirely, i feel somewhat the same...i just dont think it needs to be expressed on here quite so often is all. it seems most people on here feel some animosity towards them, and we all know that, hence my belief that it dosnt need to be repeated on here. hope this makes sense ! sorry again.
No problem cockerspaniel, the thread is moving very fast and things often get confused with the quotes etc, I know I get confused myself sometimes and trawling back 20 odd pages to find the original can be almost impossible. I do agree that sometimes there are unnecessary comments, that aren't even relevant to the thread content, and do nothing to add to the discussion, sometimes though, how they look gives a good clue as to what is going on in their heads and as such it is relevant to discuss it, in a general way though, not in a nasty, b*tchy way, that's just not necessary, I totally agree. And yes, I do feel animosity towards them, not only because of the way they have treated all of the people who have stood up and questioned them, but also for the utter contempt they have shown towards their little girl, and at that point my animosity and anger just fades into sadness.

Anyway, no need to apologise, it's been a long day in forumland, there's so much going on and lets hope there will be some sort of resolution soon

thanks for your understanding, i agree with your sentiments and yes it has been a long day! lets hope there is some resolution soon and some justice for this poor abandoned little girl. flag

by ultimaThule 16.06.14 20:27

Bishop Brennan wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:

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.!

I think this link that will clear up the confusion is this one. It clarifies the judge's official position ref Maddie as a plaintiff. Basically she ruled that the parents are not authorised to bring a suit on her behalf because she is a ward of court.

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

From the judge's ruling 1 June 2014:

"The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

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.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. 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”".

While it may appear from the above that the judge has ruled that Madeleine's "parents did not possess, in 2009, the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorisization from the British court' the fact is that the judge doesn't know whether or not the McCanns obtained the consent of the High Court prior to instituting legal proceedings on behalf of MBM and, as she most certainly isn't going to take their word for it, she has allowed a period of 30 days following the final court session for the McCanns to submit the relevent documentation to prove they were authorised to bring this action on behalf of their eldest daughter.

Until such time as it is known whether the McCanns obtained the consent of the High Court to bring this action on behalf of its Ward, it cannot be assumed that MBM, as earlier stated by Bishop Brennan, is 'off the docket'.

With regard to the judge's decision "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", while it has been trumpeted in the media that both of the McCanns will give statements, I am yet to see a reliable report to the effect that the judge has ruled that Kate McCann can also address the court.

Fwiw, following today's events I anticipate Isabel Duarte will attempt to argue that, as they were greatly inconvenienced today, her client(s) should be allowed to submit a written statement to the court and it's to be hoped that the judge will not agree to any such proposal.

.

Log in for more topics