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

by nglfi 17.06.14 14:33

frost wrote:But a source close to the couple said:
“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.”

I'm still catching up so my apologies if this has already been mentioned - but wait a minute - Sr Amaral has not suggested anything like that in this article, as far as I can see. Where did he say anything about moving the body????? He said there's a possibility she was disposed of by putting her in a coffin, but he didn't say anything about moving her body from one place to another. Admittedly he has said that in the past, so perhaps I'm reading too much into Clarrie's comment!

by worriedmum 17.06.14 14:33

I wonder how many of the television crew and reporters who filmed the McCanns coming out of court yesterday were also present and filming of the ~~non-existent~~ searches carried out in ~~a blaze of worldwide~~ no publicity last week and thus witnessed how the ~~non-existent~~ search for Madeleine had been massively ~~promoted~~ hindered to the watching public.

by Cristobell 17.06.14 14:44

nglfi wrote:
frost wrote:But a source close to the couple said:
“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.”

I'm still catching up so my apologies if this has already been mentioned - but wait a minute - Sr Amaral has not suggested anything like that in this article, as far as I can see. Where did he say anything about moving the body????? He said there's a possibility she was disposed of by putting her in a coffin, but he didn't say anything about moving her body from one place to another. Admittedly he has said that in the past, so perhaps I'm reading too much into Clarrie's comment!

Clarence too has lost the plot it seems. He is filling in the gaps for the readers, rather than outraging them at the suggestion of it. It may have worked in the summer of 2007 when the pair were positively fragrant, but after two police forces have failed to find the remains of the child, the 'body in a coffin' is now sounding credible to many. There may even have been many sighs of 'ah, that's how they did it'. Team McCann in meltdown methinks.

by worriedmum 17.06.14 14:50

The Australian interview where Gerry is asked 'Did you kill your daughter?'

Kate adds her answer to Gerry's comment to the question -in the same sort of way she did yesterday-

10.43 onwards-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0pBdLyJJhE

by noddy100 17.06.14 14:54

Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
frost wrote:But a source close to the couple said:
“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.”

I'm still catching up so my apologies if this has already been mentioned - but wait a minute - Sr Amaral has not suggested anything like that in this article, as far as I can see. Where did he say anything about moving the body????? He said there's a possibility she was disposed of by putting her in a coffin, but he didn't say anything about moving her body from one place to another. Admittedly he has said that in the past, so perhaps I'm reading too much into Clarrie's comment!
Clarence too has lost the plot it seems. He is filling in the gaps for the readers, rather than outraging them at the suggestion of it. It may have worked in the summer of 2007 when the pair were positively fragrant, but after two police forces have failed to find the remains of the child, the 'body in a coffin' is now sounding credible to many. There may even have been many sighs of 'ah, that's how they did it'. Team McCann in meltdown methinks.

agree think they are rattled big time

by Bishop Brennan 17.06.14 15:02

Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
frost wrote:But a source close to the couple said:
“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.”

I'm still catching up so my apologies if this has already been mentioned - but wait a minute - Sr Amaral has not suggested anything like that in this article, as far as I can see. Where did he say anything about moving the body????? He said there's a possibility she was disposed of by putting her in a coffin, but he didn't say anything about moving her body from one place to another. Admittedly he has said that in the past, so perhaps I'm reading too much into Clarrie's comment!
Clarence too has lost the plot it seems. He is filling in the gaps for the readers, rather than outraging them at the suggestion of it. It may have worked in the summer of 2007 when the pair were positively fragrant, but after two police forces have failed to find the remains of the child, the 'body in a coffin' is now sounding credible to many. There may even have been many sighs of 'ah, that's how they did it'. Team McCann in meltdown methinks.

What will be interesting is to see how the McCanns react to the story. On the surface it seems libellous... although perhaps it depends how he worded it / phrased it on record? It's also unusual for a UK paper to print the story in so much detail - the Express got into trouble for that last time round. Will they let it pass? Are CR still helping them? You are right though on the "Ah, maybe that's how they did it" thought that some Mirror readers are experiencing today. That will annoy them to the max. Especially if it's true!

by haroldd2 17.06.14 15:04

When the McCs' star plummets, one thing's for certain: it will be a memorable day for the British press.

It will be right up there with "Gotcha" (1982, the Sun, the Belgrano), "It's the Sun Wot Won It" (1992, the Sun, the general election) and "Murderers" (1997, Daily Mail, Stephen Lawrence case).

The newspapers will sell a lot of copies that day, especially the rags with the most eye-catching headlines. Some will sell to people who usually read other newspapers or no newspapers at all. Fleet Street must be salivating like hyenas.

For me, the most prominent words in the latest coverage are in the Mirror article:

But he suggested the McCanns hid her body in the woman’s coffin at Praia da Luz catholic church – which they had a key for – a month after she vanished in 2007.

The fact that they had a key is common knowledge in these forums, but the Mirror's message to their readers is this: the scenario that they hid their daughter's body in a coffin could well be true. Never mind the epithet "disgraced cop" and so on. They didn't have to mention the key. The only reason they mention the key is to imply that the McCs may well have disposed of their daughter's body.

Where I'd like to be a fly on the wall is Whitehall. News International pressured David Cameron into okaying the new SY investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if Brooks and Coulson are acquitted. We shall see.

If the McCs lose the libel case, all hell is going to break loose.

by noddy100 17.06.14 15:05

Blimey just had a look and the DM printed my comment yesterday re MM being a WOC and how that delayed things initially.
I have posted dozens of times but this is only the 2nd time its made the replies!

by Bishop Brennan 17.06.14 15:14

haroldd2 wrote:
For me, the most prominent words in the latest coverage are in the Mirror article:

But he suggested the McCanns hid her body in the woman’s coffin at Praia da Luz catholic church – which they had a key for – a month after she vanished in 2007.

The fact that they had a key is common knowledge in these forums, but the Mirror's message to their readers is this: the scenario that they hid their daughter's body in a coffin could well be true. Never mind the epithet "disgraced cop" and so on. They didn't have to mention the key. The only reason they mention the key is to imply that the McCs may well have disposed of their daughter's body.

It's a key point. Ahem. Very few of the general public know that they had a key. Now they do!

by nglfi 17.06.14 15:14

One thing has become clear out of all of this though - the reason Kate and Gerry didn't attend the digs. Childcare is so difficult for them to obtain, I mean every time there's a development with the libel case they have to arrange some. It's as difficult as moving mountains for them. They have to log on to the computer, go to Easyjet's website, and actually book tickets themselves. Then pay for someone to look after the twins. No wonder they couldn't manage it when SY were looking for Madeleine's body. Happily they were able to summon the strength for possible financial gain and to defend their 'reputation' though.

by ultimaThule 17.06.14 15:15

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.

by sar 17.06.14 15:16

"You can't handle the truth!" yeah, I still use that when my younger brother is loosing the argument, still a classic!

by Bishop Brennan 17.06.14 15:20

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.

This whole area does seem complex and without much precedent. I wonder if that was part of the reason for the McCanns apparently trying to settle matters out of court? They may have wandered into a bit of legal minefield.

by sar 17.06.14 15:29

who was it a while back who said she had a bad case of the "Munchies"?? Sorry, but can't help tittering..!!!!

by sar 17.06.14 15:35

haroldd2 wrote:When the McCs' star plummets, one thing's for certain: it will be a memorable day for the British press.

It will be right up there with "Gotcha" (1982, the Sun, the Belgrano), "It's the Sun Wot Won It" (1992, the Sun, the general election) and "Murderers" (1997, Daily Mail, Stephen Lawrence case).

The newspapers will sell a lot of copies that day, especially the rags with the most eye-catching headlines. Some will sell to people who usually read other newspapers or no newspapers at all. Fleet Street must be salivating like hyenas.

For me, the most prominent words in the latest coverage are in the Mirror article:

But he suggested the McCanns hid her body in the woman’s coffin at Praia da Luz catholic church – which they had a key for – a month after she vanished in 2007.

The fact that they had a key is common knowledge in these forums, but the Mirror's message to their readers is this: the scenario that they hid their daughter's body in a coffin could well be true. Never mind the epithet "disgraced cop" and so on. They didn't have to mention the key. The only reason they mention the key is to imply that the McCs may well have disposed of their daughter's body.

Where I'd like to be a fly on the wall is Whitehall. News International pressured David Cameron into okaying the new SY investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if Brooks and Coulson are acquitted. We shall see.

If the McCs lose the libel case, all hell is going to break loose.

re: brooks, coulson, would like to think it would be like "an exchange of prisoners" they get off whilst the Mc's get nicked....

"Quid Pro Quo ~~Clarice~~ Clarence Quid Pro Quo!

by Brian Griffin 17.06.14 15:37

sar wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:When the McCs' star plummets, one thing's for certain: it will be a memorable day for the British press.

It will be right up there with "Gotcha" (1982, the Sun, the Belgrano), "It's the Sun Wot Won It" (1992, the Sun, the general election) and "Murderers" (1997, Daily Mail, Stephen Lawrence case).

The newspapers will sell a lot of copies that day, especially the rags with the most eye-catching headlines. Some will sell to people who usually read other newspapers or no newspapers at all. Fleet Street must be salivating like hyenas.

For me, the most prominent words in the latest coverage are in the Mirror article:

But he suggested the McCanns hid her body in the woman’s coffin at Praia da Luz catholic church – which they had a key for – a month after she vanished in 2007.

The fact that they had a key is common knowledge in these forums, but the Mirror's message to their readers is this: the scenario that they hid their daughter's body in a coffin could well be true. Never mind the epithet "disgraced cop" and so on. They didn't have to mention the key. The only reason they mention the key is to imply that the McCs may well have disposed of their daughter's body.

Where I'd like to be a fly on the wall is Whitehall. News International pressured David Cameron into okaying the new SY investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if Brooks and Coulson are acquitted. We shall see.

If the McCs lose the libel case, all hell is going to break loose.
re: brooks, coulson, would like to think it would be like "an exchange of prisoners" they get off whilst the Mc's get nicked....

"Quid Pro Quo ~~Clarice~~ Clarence Quid Pro Quo!

Is that 'quid' as in a cool million?

by nglfi 17.06.14 15:40

sar wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:When the McCs' star plummets, one thing's for certain: it will be a memorable day for the British press.

It will be right up there with "Gotcha" (1982, the Sun, the Belgrano), "It's the Sun Wot Won It" (1992, the Sun, the general election) and "Murderers" (1997, Daily Mail, Stephen Lawrence case).

The newspapers will sell a lot of copies that day, especially the rags with the most eye-catching headlines. Some will sell to people who usually read other newspapers or no newspapers at all. Fleet Street must be salivating like hyenas.

For me, the most prominent words in the latest coverage are in the Mirror article:

But he suggested the McCanns hid her body in the woman’s coffin at Praia da Luz catholic church – which they had a key for – a month after she vanished in 2007.

The fact that they had a key is common knowledge in these forums, but the Mirror's message to their readers is this: the scenario that they hid their daughter's body in a coffin could well be true. Never mind the epithet "disgraced cop" and so on. They didn't have to mention the key. The only reason they mention the key is to imply that the McCs may well have disposed of their daughter's body.

Where I'd like to be a fly on the wall is Whitehall. News International pressured David Cameron into okaying the new SY investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if Brooks and Coulson are acquitted. We shall see.

If the McCs lose the libel case, all hell is going to break loose.
re: brooks, coulson, would like to think it would be like "an exchange of prisoners" they get off whilst the Mc's get nicked....

"Quid Pro Quo ~~Clarice~~ Clarence Quid Pro Quo!

I'm reminded of Gerry's repeated 'key piece of information' quotes. At the time people were saying they thought a key was involved in this crime and I thought perhaps it was just a turn of phrase of his. But if what Amaral says is correct, having the key to the church made the entire crime possible.

by Brian Griffin 17.06.14 15:42

Considering all this hoo-ha over the book, it strikes me as odd it should cause so much trouble when there are copies of it online anyway. In fact, all GA has to do is put his book into the Public Domain, assuming he hasn't signed over the rights to a publisher, and then anyone can publish the book as many times as they want. You can't sue everybody! It would be like trying to rid your garden of an infestation of moles - you fill in one hole and two more appear elsewhere while you're doing it. Just a thought.

by Praiaaa 17.06.14 16:01

Joey Deacon wrote:I hope they get closure too Piers.

Of a prison cell door.

Well said

by jeanmonroe 17.06.14 16:07

He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00am when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUI-SILVA.htm

Gerry went out again at 4am with his friend D Payne.

(Scouting mission?)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, why would one ask WHERE a church was when one is, supposedly, out 'searching' for a LIVE Madeleine at 4am?

One's been in a quite SMALL 'village' resort for almost a week.

I'd have thought you would have known where church's are, when 'exploring' the village during the previous days.

Presumeably they did NOT 'go to church' depite their religious 'devoutness' the previous Sunday, 29th April 2007.

Otherwise GM would have already KNOWN where a church 'was', wouldn't he?

There are only THREE church's in PDL.

by ShuBob 17.06.14 16:15

So after Clarence Mitchell appealed to the British media not to repeat Amaral's claims, the Mirror decides to make those very claims front page news big grin

by SchrodingersBody 17.06.14 16:27

jeanmonroe wrote:He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00am when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUI-SILVA.htm

Gerry went out again at 4am with his friend D Payne.

(Scouting mission?)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, why would one ask WHERE a church was when one is, supposedly, out 'searching' for a LIVE Madeleine at 4am?

One's been in a quite SMALL 'village' resort for almost a week.

I'd have thought you would have known where church's are, when 'exploring' the village during the previous days.

Presumeably they did NOT 'go to church' depite their religious 'devoutness' the previous Sunday, 29th April 2007.

Otherwise GM would have already KNOWN where a church 'was', wouldn't he?

There are only THREE church's in PDL.

Don't the part-timers of the catholic community suddenly want to turn up at church for weddings, christenings and funerals....

by jeanmonroe 17.06.14 16:28

ShuBob wrote:So after Clarence Mitchell appealed to the British media not to repeat Amaral's claims, the Mirror decides to make those very claims front page news

I think his 'nod' to the press was not to print/repeat what Kate said about how she has to, tiresomely/annoyingly/bothersomely for her, to make 'child care arrangements' for her two remaining kids, when she leaves them at home, again, in her 'search/quest' for 'finding' ~~money~~ Madeleine.

btw: Due to the early closure of the 'case' yesterday, did the McCanns manage to do even a lickle 'search' in PDL?

They had a few hours to 'fill' didn't they, before their flight home?

by jeanmonroe 17.06.14 16:50

'ELITE' Met Police officers, at Operation Strange 'react' to the McCann 'show' in Portugal.

"Oh FFS, THREE years of our 'hard graft' winkwink

portraying them as 'lovely, put upon, sweet parents' down the tubes, in 3 minutes, Sarge"

by Issy 17.06.14 16:53

jeanmonroe wrote:
ShuBob wrote:So after Clarence Mitchell appealed to the British media not to repeat Amaral's claims, the Mirror decides to make those very claims front page news

I think his 'nod' to the press was not to print/repeat what Kate said about how she has to, tiresomely/annoyingly/bothersomely for her, to make 'child care arrangements' for her two remaining kids, when she leaves them at home, again, in her 'search/quest' for 'finding' ~~money~~ Madeleine.

btw: Due to the early closure of the 'case' yesterday, did the McCanns manage to do even a lickle 'search' in PDL?

They had a few hours to 'fill' didn't they, before their flight home?

ShuBob is correct, Clarence Mitchell did indeed ask the media not to repeat GA's claims. He said: '"Mr Amaral's claims are entirely unfounded and we hope the British media will not repeat them." But thankfully the British media - or the Mirror anyway - ignored him!

Log in for more topics