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

McCanns to appear in libel trial on Monday 16 June

Page 5 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by Joey Deacon on 17.06.14 19:07

@aquila wrote:



What a dick.

Joey Deacon

Posts : 36
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-07
Location : East Anglia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Rasputin on 17.06.14 19:16

A Helmet !

____________________
"I'm not buying it" Wendy Murphy

Rasputin

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Newintown on 17.06.14 19:19

Popcorn wrote:
@Galadriel wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:


'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

................................

MY REPLY (sorry, can't work out how to make it quote properly!)

I have always been curious about this.  French has the word 'decevoir' which looks like 'deceive', but means 'disappoint'.

I haven't learnt Portuguese - does anyone know what word was used by the priest - and does that word include both meanings?  (i.e. could the priest have been 'disappointed' rather than 'deceived'?)





That's a good point, Galadriel. This is what Google translate offers as Portuguese words for "disappoint":
verb
desapontar
disappoint, let down, fail, deceive, frustrate, mock
desiludir
disappoint, disabuse, disillusion, let down, deceive, frustrate

On the other hand, it does beg the question, why did he feel let down, disappointed, frustrated or mocked (if that's what he meant)?

I'm assuming that he knew at the time that the couple admitted to leaving their children home alone, so what else bothered him about them, I wonder (if he did use one of those words)?

Could it have been that he realised that K & G were not practising Catholics and everything they did with regard to the PDL Church was just for show and he and his Church had been used and abused in order for them to court the media and to fill their Fund.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sallypelt on 17.06.14 19:22

@Newintown wrote:
Popcorn wrote:
@Galadriel wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:


'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

................................

MY REPLY (sorry, can't work out how to make it quote properly!)

I have always been curious about this.  French has the word 'decevoir' which looks like 'deceive', but means 'disappoint'.

I haven't learnt Portuguese - does anyone know what word was used by the priest - and does that word include both meanings?  (i.e. could the priest have been 'disappointed' rather than 'deceived'?)





That's a good point, Galadriel. This is what Google translate offers as Portuguese words for "disappoint":
verb
desapontar
disappoint, let down, fail, deceive, frustrate, mock
desiludir
disappoint, disabuse, disillusion, let down, deceive, frustrate

On the other hand, it does beg the question, why did he feel let down, disappointed, frustrated or mocked (if that's what he meant)?

I'm assuming that he knew at the time that the couple admitted to leaving their children home alone, so what else bothered him about them, I wonder (if he did use one of those words)?

Could it have been that he realised that K & G were not practising Catholics and everything they did with regard to the PDL Church was just for show and he and his Church had been used and abused in order for them to court the media and to fill their Fund.

The church in PDL is both Catholic and Protestant, and from what I have researched, the services are conducted in English.

sallypelt

Posts : 3302
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Markus 2 on 17.06.14 19:25

Amaral added: “The mystery will only end when the McCann couple are no longer being protected. Only then will we understand the truth.” Protected  the main obstacle in this , by the highest of  society. frown need to hang on to that statement from him.

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Issy on 17.06.14 19:33

I remember there was something about Kate and Gerry giving the key to the church back to the Hubbards when they left Praia da Luz, rather than returning it to Father Pacheco, and not bothering to see him to say goodbye and thanks. If true, that would probably be enough to make him feel disappointed and side-lined. He'd done his best for them, but wasn't worth a thank-you visit.

Issy

Posts : 36
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Newintown on 17.06.14 19:37

@sallypelt wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
Popcorn wrote:
@Galadriel wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:


'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

................................

MY REPLY (sorry, can't work out how to make it quote properly!)

I have always been curious about this.  French has the word 'decevoir' which looks like 'deceive', but means 'disappoint'.

I haven't learnt Portuguese - does anyone know what word was used by the priest - and does that word include both meanings?  (i.e. could the priest have been 'disappointed' rather than 'deceived'?)





That's a good point, Galadriel. This is what Google translate offers as Portuguese words for "disappoint":
verb
desapontar
disappoint, let down, fail, deceive, frustrate, mock
desiludir
disappoint, disabuse, disillusion, let down, deceive, frustrate

On the other hand, it does beg the question, why did he feel let down, disappointed, frustrated or mocked (if that's what he meant)?

I'm assuming that he knew at the time that the couple admitted to leaving their children home alone, so what else bothered him about them, I wonder (if he did use one of those words)?

Could it have been that he realised that K & G were not practising Catholics and everything they did with regard to the PDL Church was just for show and he and his Church had been used and abused in order for them to court the media and to fill their Fund.

The church in PDL is both Catholic and Protestant, and from what I have researched, the services are conducted in English.

But that doesn't make any difference if they'd told the priest (who may have gone out of his way to console them and take special Communion/Confession for them or had spent hours discussing the impact of the "abduction" of Madeleine with them) that they were practising Catholics and then for him to find out they'd probably never been inside a church for xxxx years.  That is one huge deceit in the eyes of a priest to be used and abused in that way when their sole purpose of using the Church was how they looked and were perceived in press articles.

For any new members - KM's mother actually stated on a TV \news interview that "she didn't know why Kate asked for a priest after Madeleine was "abducted" as she wasn't particularly religious.

Hey, who needs enemies when you have your own Mother telling the World how duplicitous you are!!

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Media coverage as alibi?

Post by Jauna Loca on 17.06.14 19:38

But a source close to the couple said: “These are sickening allegations that no sane person would believe.

“It’s about time people realised what Mr Amaral is, a liar and a fantasist. He has been making these false claims since he was sacked.

“He is suggesting Kate and Gerry moved Madeleine’s body a month after she vanished.

"At that time they were the most-watched couple in the history of the modern media.”


That's not the first time the couple have used Media as alibi. But I know a day when the entire world's media was concentrated in one spot on the Algarve
and that the McCann's drove off in the opposite direction. I remember even at the time thinking it was a good day to move something incriminating, but what's the chances
of such an oportunity just presenting itself like that?

Imagine also if that opportunity presented itself by means of a message, from a foreign country...and guess who had been there the week before?!

All this followed immediately with weekend of unprecedented high drama furnishing us with last photo, Maddie's "official" DNA, alibi for credit card misuse,
perhaps free passage into UK in an ambulance, (read a somewhere else of NOTW using a decoy ambulance to pull some stunt, stuck in my mind) and alibi for
detour en route to PDL if followed. Too much coincidence? All IMO, of course.

Jauna Loca

Posts : 65
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by haroldd2 on 17.06.14 19:49

@ultimaThule wrote:
@Dr What wrote:I am sure that there is someone on this forum with up-to-date legal knowledge.

It strikes me that, assuming that the McCanns did not gain the required permission from the High Court to represent Maddie in their legal action against Amaral, shouldn't the High Court take action against the McCanns for breaching the terms of the WOC status?

The High Court should be taking action against the McCanns in order to protect Maddie's interests, since her interests are vested with the High Court.

Anyone know?

You've posed an interesting question, DrW, to which I have no ready answer as, to date, I have been unable to find precedent in respect of a Ward being made party to libel proceedings or for such proceedings to be instituted on the Ward's behalf, either by the Court in the form of the Official Solicitor or by the appointed carer(s) of the minor, and the issue is further complicated by the fact that these proceedings are taking place outside of the UK..  

At the present time we can make no assumption as to whether or not the McCanns obtained the consent of the Court prior to instituting proceedings in Lisbon on behalf of the Ward.  However, in the event that they neglected to obtain consent I would expect that at some point they will be required to explain why they chose to take this 'important step in the child's life'  without seeking leave to do so, and more particularly as the Court cannot be unaware of the actions of the parents in this matter.
Agreed that we can make no assumption, but I suspect they didn't obtain consent, given that if they did it would have been peculiar if they didn't tell their lawyer, who should then surely have obtained the required documentation to prove her clients' credentials.

A further question...

If the McCs acted without the English court's consent and it became aware of the libel action, did it contact them? Did it say, "We consider that the submission of a claim of such magnitude constitutes a sufficiently important step for us to reserve the authority to ourselves to decide whether or not to continue the action. In the first instance, please can you therefore send us a copy of all documents concerning this part of the claim" (and then promising a big cheque for the lawyer)?

The court would have to consider the possibility that physical harm might be done to Madeleine (if she is alive) as a result of continuing or discontinuing the claim (on which they would surely seek SY advice) and, if the question then remained open, then the financial risk and possible benefits and the chances of success.

What I mean is, as Madeleine's guardian the English court should surely consider these matters whether or not the McCs ask them to. It is not up to the McCs to convince them.

It's looking like a bridge too far, another instance on the list of lost libel claims which have brought the claimants crashing down spectacularly like meteorites.

haroldd2

Posts : 122
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2014-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 17.06.14 19:59

“It’s about time people realised what Mr Amaral is, a liar and a fantasist. He has been making these false claims since he was sacked.

“He is suggesting Kate and Gerry moved Madeleine’s body a month after she vanished.

"At that time they were the most-watched couple in the history of the modern media.”

Nr. 1: he was NOT sacked. He was taken of the case and decided to leave the force.
Nr. 2: Yes, he does. And that’s in line with the cadaver scent and fluids found in that car.
Nr. 3: Yes, they were. And yet they were not. They got free time off from the press to protect their privacy. AND they were often elsewhere. So it would be very interesting to know, WHEN the cremation took place. When they were in Morocco e.g.? Wearing BLACK clothes in the heat ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Newintown on 17.06.14 20:10

@haroldd2 wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@Dr What wrote:I am sure that there is someone on this forum with up-to-date legal knowledge.

It strikes me that, assuming that the McCanns did not gain the required permission from the High Court to represent Maddie in their legal action against Amaral, shouldn't the High Court take action against the McCanns for breaching the terms of the WOC status?

The High Court should be taking action against the McCanns in order to protect Maddie's interests, since her interests are vested with the High Court.

Anyone know?

You've posed an interesting question, DrW, to which I have no ready answer as, to date, I have been unable to find precedent in respect of a Ward being made party to libel proceedings or for such proceedings to be instituted on the Ward's behalf, either by the Court in the form of the Official Solicitor or by the appointed carer(s) of the minor, and the issue is further complicated by the fact that these proceedings are taking place outside of the UK..  

At the present time we can make no assumption as to whether or not the McCanns obtained the consent of the Court prior to instituting proceedings in Lisbon on behalf of the Ward.  However, in the event that they neglected to obtain consent I would expect that at some point they will be required to explain why they chose to take this 'important step in the child's life'  without seeking leave to do so, and more particularly as the Court cannot be unaware of the actions of the parents in this matter.
Agreed that we can make no assumption, but I suspect they didn't obtain consent, given that if they did it would have been peculiar if they didn't tell their lawyer, who should then surely have obtained the required documentation to prove her clients' credentials.

A further question...

If the McCs acted without the English court's consent and it became aware of the libel action, did it contact them? Did it say, "We consider that the submission of a claim of such magnitude constitutes a sufficiently important step for us to reserve the authority to ourselves to decide whether or not to continue the action. In the first instance, please can you therefore send us a copy of all documents concerning this part of the claim" (and then promising a big cheque for the lawyer)?

The court would have to consider the possibility that physical harm might be done to Madeleine (if she is alive) as a result of continuing or discontinuing the claim (on which they would surely seek SY advice) and, if the question then remained open, then the financial risk and possible benefits and the chances of success.

What I mean is, as Madeleine's guardian the English court should surely consider these matters whether or not the McCs ask them to. It is not up to the McCs to convince them.

It's looking like a bridge too far, another instance on the list of lost libel claims which have brought the claimants crashing down spectacularly like meteorites.

I would have thought that when Madeleine was made a Ward of Court the McCanns would have been told that their "parentship" (if that's a word) had been taken away from them and Madeleine would now be in the charge of the Court or a person who had been put in charge of her and her future (if she was found) through the Court and anything pertaining to Madeleine would now have to go through the WOC and the person who was now her "Ward".

Were the McCanns pushing their luck in taking out the action in Portugal thinking that the Portuguese law would not look into the WOC matter; if the McCanns were desperate to get their hands on £1m, I can believe that.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jack dexter on 17.06.14 20:20

What was the purpose of the seriously injured remark?

Plan B?

jack dexter

Posts : 48
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2014-05-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Miraflores on 17.06.14 20:26

Presumably any money awarded for Madeleine, being a minor, would be put in trust for her, and the McCann parents would not be able to get their hands on it easily? Would I be correct in assuming that only if she were to be declared dead, and the wardship ceased would the parents be able to get hold of the money?

Miraflores

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by JackieL on 17.06.14 20:33

@frost wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:That Mirror story is the only one I've seen that uses the 'disgraced cop' mantra....but isn't it a good thing that his allegaton is making the front page?

  It's ironic that the McCann's thought they were silencing Amaral through the trial but now even more 'vile' allegations are being repeated in the press.
the liverpool echo article I posted earlier on this thread uses the 'disgraced cop ' mantra and the source close to the couple makes some rather erm libellous comments against Amaral .

Interesting reading the readers' comments though..........now more and more anti-McCann comments are getting through on traditional news websites.

JackieL

Posts : 221
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by JackieL on 17.06.14 20:35

@canada12 wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:That Mirror story is the only one I've seen that uses the 'disgraced cop' mantra....but isn't it a good thing that his allegaton is making the front page?

  It's ironic that the McCann's thought they were silencing Amaral through the trial but now even more 'vile' allegations are being repeated in the press.
I think so too Chippy.  The Mirror 'coffin' headline is devastating, especially after the fruitless excavations.  The McCanns must be in turmoil right now, all the news reports mentioned Goncalo's book, and some even held it up and pointed out that it was a bestseller.  Clarence asked the news desks not to repeat Goncalo's allegations, but the cat was by then well and truly out of the bag.  As Goncalo once said 'things are not going well for the McCanns'.

What I find interesting is that the coffin story came directly from interviews that GA did with the Portuguese press, not the English press. And yet the English papers are running with the story - which proves that they do, in fact, monitor the Portuguese papers. So now that GA has their attention, he may be able to continue to keep his name and the story in the English papers by continuing to release information like this - shock tactics, but it's what keeps the MSM happy.
I think the UK MSM is too lazy to check the Portuguese press.  I think they read it here or another forum.

JackieL

Posts : 221
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Newintown on 17.06.14 20:37

@Miraflores wrote:Presumably any money awarded for Madeleine, being a minor, would be put in trust for her, and the McCann parents would not be able to get their hands on it easily? Would I be correct in assuming that only if she were to be declared dead, and the wardship ceased would the parents be able to get hold of the money?

I can't see any money going to Madeleine as the McCanns have no jurisdiction over her as she is a "Ward of Court" and therefore has been taken out of their control.

That was the whole point of GA having to pay out pots of money to get the right papers to present to Court for this last hearing (which has now been postponed) about the Wardship of Madeleine and if the McCanns could or not bring this case with her name on it when she had been made a WOC.

The McCanns should have known or had been advised by their lawyers that they could not represent Madeleine as she was a WOC, but of course the McCanns being the McCanns think they can walk all over protocol and the law and make everyone jump to their wishes when they command and demand it.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sallypelt on 17.06.14 20:38

This is the latest, if it hasn't already been posted, from Anne Geudes, regarding yesterday's libel trial:

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 11



The hearing as it happened



(16.06.2014, 10:30am)

The judge informs that she has received a request this morning from Gonçalo Amaral to consider the dismissal of his lawyer, Dr Victor Santos de Oliveira.



The lawyers are asked to state their respective position on this issue.





– Dr Santos de Oliveira (ex-GA lawyer)



He explains that the notification sent to him by Gonçalo Amaral implies that his participation as a lawyer is inhibited: he can't function as the authorised representative of Gonçalo Amaral.



He considers however that, given the nature of this process, the instruction of a new lawyer is required. Therefore SO asks for the suspension of the current hearing.





– Dra Fatima Esteves (Guerra&Paz lawyer)



She observes firstly the oddness of notifying the Court of the dismissal at 9am.



She reminds the Court of the CPP rules with regard to the conditions of dismissal, the effects of which start directly after the notification.



She reminds them also that the contradictory principle is at the core of a civil trial. If the instruction of a new lawyer is required, it can happen only after the notification. Therefore there has to be a delay in order for GA to instruct a new lawyer.



This means that the hearing must be suspended. Last but not least she mentions that deontology implies a general consensus for the interruption of the hearing.





– Dr Miguel Coroadinha (TVI lawyer)



He has nothing to add except to express his solidarity with Dr Santos de Oliveira.





– Dr Henrique Costa Pinto (VdeC multimedia lawyer)



He seconds Dr MC’s words about solidarity and says that the solution to the current issue belongs with the Court: suspend or interrupt the hearing? (The difference is minimum and more a technicality with an effect on expiring terms).



He observes that now the dismissal of SO's mandate has taken effect, it would not be right to go ahead with the hearing, but is a solid reason (force majeure) for interrupting it.



He believes that the legal delay to constitute a new lawyer is 10 days, subject to the Tribunal eventually naming a representative.



– Dra Isabel Duarte



She observes that the Court was notified of the dismissal only this morning, when her clients had already left the UK.



She mentions the effect on the process of the plaintiffs' reactions to a postponement and claims there is no right impediment to the hearing going ahead although she observes that there would be one if the lawyer was incapable of exercising his function.



She further distinguishes between a case of renouncement and one of dismissal and finally states she considers that the hearing must not be suspended but go on with Gonçalo Amaral being asked to constitute a new representative.





– The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro



She states that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral had come to notify the Court this morning that he had (on the 13th evening) informed Dr Santos de Oliveira that his mandate would be revoked on the 15th. She states further that the effects of this dismissal start with the notification of his representative and the opposite parties. Therefore the mandate can be considered to be at an end.



She also observes that the act that led to the mandate's cessation is
voluntary.


As to the consequences on the process, there are two possibilities, both supported by the law (one was put forward by Dra Isabel Duarte and the other was suggested by the defence lawyers). The judge describes those two possibilities referring to jurisprudence and cites the arguments in favour of both.



She concludes that the second better adjusts to the contradictory principle of the defence and to the equality between the parties. Therefore she considers fairer to allow the defendant a delay to instruct a new lawyer, with the condition that if he fails the process will go on with the juridical acts previously accomplished. Gonçalo Amaral is therefore given 10 days to appoint a lawyer. This is why the current hearing cannot proceed.



Taking into account those 10 days she proposes the date of 8 of July.



Dra Isabel Duarte asks to go and consult with her clients (who are not in the courtroom) and finally agrees with this date but objects that her allegation will be long and doubts that everything can be done in only one day.



The judge asks the lawyers which kind of allegations they'll do: allegations of law or allegations of facts? The defence lawyers say they will claim the first and Dra Duarte the second.



The judge then decides that the plaintiffs will be heard on the morning of the 8th of July and the Duarte allegation in the afternoon.

Another date, 10th of July, is fixed to hear the four defence speeches.



The judges then asks the court clerk to call the plaintiffs. The interpreter (the same who worked at the first hearings) is there. The judge explains what happened and apologises but adds that they were circumstances beyond her control.



And so it ended.

sallypelt

Posts : 3302
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by ShuBob on 17.06.14 20:41

@haroldd2 wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@Dr What wrote:I am sure that there is someone on this forum with up-to-date legal knowledge.

It strikes me that, assuming that the McCanns did not gain the required permission from the High Court to represent Maddie in their legal action against Amaral, shouldn't the High Court take action against the McCanns for breaching the terms of the WOC status?

The High Court should be taking action against the McCanns in order to protect Maddie's interests, since her interests are vested with the High Court.

Anyone know?

You've posed an interesting question, DrW, to which I have no ready answer as, to date, I have been unable to find precedent in respect of a Ward being made party to libel proceedings or for such proceedings to be instituted on the Ward's behalf, either by the Court in the form of the Official Solicitor or by the appointed carer(s) of the minor, and the issue is further complicated by the fact that these proceedings are taking place outside of the UK..  

At the present time we can make no assumption as to whether or not the McCanns obtained the consent of the Court prior to instituting proceedings in Lisbon on behalf of the Ward.  However, in the event that they neglected to obtain consent I would expect that at some point they will be required to explain why they chose to take this 'important step in the child's life'  without seeking leave to do so, and more particularly as the Court cannot be unaware of the actions of the parents in this matter.
Agreed that we can make no assumption, but I suspect they didn't obtain consent, given that if they did it would have been peculiar if they didn't tell their lawyer, who should then surely have obtained the required documentation to prove her clients' credentials.

[...]

According to Amaral's lawyer in a new article posted on the JM blog, it has been established that the couple didn't have authorization at the time.

[Amaral's lawyer] - Evidently. When a defence was already done, when there is a work done on this process, when we have accomplished milestones in the process namely the restitution of the book sales - which was achieved by this defence [meaning him], and also to successfully prove that the McCanns at the moment when they brought this action in their daughter's name, they could not have done it. Today that is more than completely established, [...]

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/goncalo-amaral-revoked-his-lawyers.html

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by canada12 on 17.06.14 20:42

Kate at her best.
Yesterday, courtesy of the New York Daily News


canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 187
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Miraflores on 17.06.14 20:43

I can't see any money going to Madeleine as the McCanns have no jurisdiction over her as she is a "Ward of Court" and therefore has been taken out of their control.

Agreed, but even if for some reason it was allowed, the McCanns wouldn't have ready access to the money? With the action on the twins behalf: that too would also be in trust, but they would probably be able to spend it for their welfare so the parents would get an indirect benefit.

But it looks like they didn't have permission, so as far as Madeleine is concerned that is academic.

Miraflores

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by fossey on 17.06.14 20:47

@canada12 wrote:Kate at her best.
Yesterday, courtesy of the New York Daily News


fossey

Posts : 293
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sofieellis on 17.06.14 20:54

@sallypelt wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
Popcorn wrote:
@Galadriel wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:


'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

................................

MY REPLY (sorry, can't work out how to make it quote properly!)

I have always been curious about this.  French has the word 'decevoir' which looks like 'deceive', but means 'disappoint'.

I haven't learnt Portuguese - does anyone know what word was used by the priest - and does that word include both meanings?  (i.e. could the priest have been 'disappointed' rather than 'deceived'?)





That's a good point, Galadriel. This is what Google translate offers as Portuguese words for "disappoint":
verb
desapontar
disappoint, let down, fail, deceive, frustrate, mock
desiludir
disappoint, disabuse, disillusion, let down, deceive, frustrate

On the other hand, it does beg the question, why did he feel let down, disappointed, frustrated or mocked (if that's what he meant)?

I'm assuming that he knew at the time that the couple admitted to leaving their children home alone, so what else bothered him about them, I wonder (if he did use one of those words)?

Could it have been that he realised that K & G were not practising Catholics and everything they did with regard to the PDL Church was just for show and he and his Church had been used and abused in order for them to court the media and to fill their Fund.

The church in PDL is both Catholic and Protestant, and from what I have researched, the services are conducted in English.

I think the Catholic services are conducted in Portuguese, but the Anglican services are conducted in English. I read this somewhere earlier today, but I can't remember where now.

sofieellis

Posts : 184
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Newintown on 17.06.14 20:57

@Miraflores wrote:
I can't see any money going to Madeleine as the McCanns have no jurisdiction over her as she is a "Ward of Court" and therefore has been taken out of their control.

Agreed, but even if for some reason it was allowed, the McCanns wouldn't have ready access to the money? With the action on the twins behalf: that too would also be in trust, but they would probably be able to spend it for their welfare so the parents would get an indirect benefit.

But it looks like they didn't have permission, so as far as Madeleine is concerned that is academic.

Any payment may be put on on hold until the twins are 18 or 21 depending on what the court decides or the decision could be put in the hands of a third party i.e. a bank or someone in some professional capacity, a solicitor, or Trust Fund.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 17.06.14 21:07

This may not be relevant but nonetheless I will recount my experience with the legal system in Ireland and my then minor child.  One of my daughters had an accident at school aged 5 and incurred dental injuries which could not be permanently fixed due to her age. We took a case against the school and were awarded a sum to compensate her for the dental expenses to be incurred in the future and for pain and suffering. The money was paid into court. We could not touch it but could apply for payments with proof of dental expenditure up to the time she was 18 when the amount was payable to her less any interim monies paid out to us.

I would imagine that if the Portuguese court awarded damages to the McCanns, the sum relating to Madeleine would have to be paid to the British court. The McCanns presumably could ask for interim payments for the search for her but would have to establish that they were paying a named relevant company for the work, and possibly if this request were granted the court might follow up on this and request a report on the work carried out. Given that the Uk police are already spending millions of UK taxpayers money on the search for Madeleine, its hard to imagine a UK court approving payments out. The problem would come when Madeleine was 18 and legally an adult. At that stage presumably unless she was declared legally dead her parents would still not to able to access the money. Perhaps someone has the legal expertise to clarify this?

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2013-11-14

View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Beanie on 17.06.14 21:09

@Markus 2 wrote:Amaral added: “The mystery will only end when the McCann couple are no longer being protected. Only then will we understand the truth.” Protected  the main obstacle in this , by the highest of  society. frown need to hang on to that statement from him.
Masons always look after their own.  I have two friends who are masons one very high up, I asked him a question, not mentioning McCanns, if Masons would cover up a death in a family, he told me they probably would if many masons were involved. Scary, they are like the mafia.

Beanie

Posts : 238
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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