LAST DAY OF LIBEL TRIAL 8th July 2014 DISCUSSION AND NEWS

Latetothecase wrote:

Truthandjustice wrote:Also GM going on about dogs and trying to discredit them does not do him any favours. The video evidence is out there for all to see. Surely a more guileless reaction to the dogs would have been something along the lines of 'omg you think she is dead?! Omg' and working closely with PJ thereafter to ensure the perp is apprehended.

This is what's great about letting them speak. Their current focus gives the inner workings away.

'The dogs, the dogs the dogs'

'have to get childcare to come out here'

And of course the desperation imo of bringing in children publicly to their cause who were babies in cots at the time. This is the lowest they have ever sunk now to get cash imo.

Tangled Web wrote:For anybody who hasn't seen this, Sky report from last night with brief interview with the McCann's and info about the trial and GA's book.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

frost wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Colette Croft ‏@collywobbles54  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SKY ticker [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hoping2 give VI statements at trial of former police chief who wrote book allegedly implicating them is M's disappearance

Am I reading that correctly 6 statements ? why 6 ? surely one would suffice 

or is it one for kate , gerry . sean . amelie , madeleine and then one on behalf of family and friends ?

PeterMac wrote:Sky news an hour or so ago.
Bruntie doing all the stuff from Lisbon.

Then healdlines, read by Kay B
!st headline - probably war or something
Second healine - Kuma case, where the mother is acused of killing . . .  and then cried abduction . .

Cut back to Kay B, who despite her professionalism was looking absolutely stunned at what she had been required to read out.

I bet they will change the order of things by the next time.

Gaggzy wrote:

frost wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Colette Croft ‏@collywobbles54  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SKY ticker [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hoping2 give VI statements at trial of former police chief who wrote book allegedly implicating them is M's disappearance

Am I reading that correctly 6 statements ? why 6 ? surely one would suffice 

or is it one for kate , gerry . sean . amelie , madeleine and then one on behalf of family and friends ?

6 statements?

Well it's 1 for the money,

2 for the show,

3 to get ready now go Kate go, but don't you, step on the PJ's shoes.

Thank you, thankyouverymuch .... uh huh.

         

Swannie wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone see if GM was wearing a 'FindMadeleine' GQWB?

IF he was he's a fcuking hypocrite, because he has been seen on at least two 'public' occasions NOT wearing one.

petunia                                                                                                                                                                                     "I see Gerry is wearing his wristband."


It would appear so........... Pity he's not wearing it as a necklace - that might shut him up.........

canada12 wrote:I don't actually think the fact (if it is a fact) that Sean mentioned something from GA's book to his mother counts as extreme distress, disharmony or whatever else the McCanns are suing for. If Sean had then gone on to have serious emotional issues, or had failing grades in school, or something like that, then perhaps Kate might have a slim case in suggesting GA's book has led to problems for her kids. As it stands, I do believe if she's going to make statements about her children, she'd really need to back those up by allowing the kids to testify about their emotional states. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and very weak hearsay (IMO). So really it can only be about Kate and Gerry's emotional states as a result of GA's book, and so far I haven't read or seen anything that convinces me they're suffering. I'm hoping the judge is perceptive enough to come to the same conclusion.

jeanmonroe wrote:Just a 'thought'

WAS GM's 'mention' of a 'SHE' outside court subliminally, specifically, aimed at JT?

Gaggzy wrote:

frost wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Colette Croft ‏@collywobbles54  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SKY ticker [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hoping2 give VI statements at trial of former police chief who wrote book allegedly implicating them is M's disappearance

Am I reading that correctly 6 statements ? why 6 ? surely one would suffice 

or is it one for kate , gerry . sean . amelie , madeleine and then one on behalf of family and friends ?

6 statements?

Well it's 1 for the money,

2 for the show,

3 to get ready now go Kate go, but don't you, step on the PJ's shoes.

Thank you, thankyouverymuch .... uh huh.

         

View-from-Ireland wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Sky news an hour or so ago.
Bruntie doing all the stuff from Lisbon.
Then healdlines, read by Kay B
!st headline - probably war or something
Second healine - Kulma case, where the mother is acused of killing . . .  and then cried abduction . .
Cut back to Kay B, who despite her professionalism was looking absolutely stunned at what she had been required to read out.
I bet they will change the order of things by the next time.

Wow, talk about subliminals..

canada12 wrote:I don't actually think the fact (if it is a fact) that Sean mentioned something from GA's book to his mother counts as extreme distress, disharmony or whatever else the McCanns are suing for. If Sean had then gone on to have serious emotional issues, or had failing grades in school, or something like that, then perhaps Kate might have a slim case in suggesting GA's book has led to problems for her kids. As it stands, I do believe if she's going to make statements about her children, she'd really need to back those up by allowing the kids to testify about their emotional states. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and very weak hearsay (IMO). So really it can only be about Kate and Gerry's emotional states as a result of GA's book, and so far I haven't read or seen anything that convinces me they're suffering. I'm hoping the judge is perceptive enough to come to the same conclusion.

jeanmonroe wrote:Quasimodo: The bells! The bells! The fcuking bells!

GM: The dogs! The dogs! The fcuking dogs!

The Judge: "Shut the fcuk up!"

plebgate wrote:

canada12 wrote:I don't actually think the fact (if it is a fact) that Sean mentioned something from GA's book to his mother counts as extreme distress, disharmony or whatever else the McCanns are suing for. If Sean had then gone on to have serious emotional issues, or had failing grades in school, or something like that, then perhaps Kate might have a slim case in suggesting GA's book has led to problems for her kids. As it stands, I do believe if she's going to make statements about her children, she'd really need to back those up by allowing the kids to testify about their emotional states. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and very weak hearsay (IMO). So really it can only be about Kate and Gerry's emotional states as a result of GA's book, and so far I haven't read or seen anything that convinces me they're suffering. I'm hoping the judge is perceptive enough to come to the same conclusion.

A child pyschologist's report would have helped a lot more than hearsay evidence imo.

Tony Bennett wrote:Irish newspaper just reported this:


Kate McCann tells libel trial of moment son asked about police chief's claims she hid Madeleine

Jul 08, 2014 12:02 By Paul Byrne

Kate and Gerry are suing Goncalo Amaral, the ex cop who wrote a book about the disappearance of their daughter, writes Paul Byrne in Lisbon

Kate McCann told a Portuguese court today how one of her twin children had asked her about claims she had hidden Madeleine.

Kate and Gerry are suing Goncalo Amaral, the ex cop who wrote a book about the disappearance of their daughter.

He claimed Madeleine had died in their holiday apartment and Kate and Gerry had covered up her death.

At the libel trial in Lisbon today, Kate spent 55 emotional minutes detailing the distress the book and follow-up TV documentary had caused them.

And she revealed the details of his outrageous claims had even reached their nine-year-old young children.

She said: “Sean asked me in October last year: 'Mr Amaral said you hid Madeleine, didn’t he?’

“I just said ‘he did, and he has said a lot of silly things.”

She said her son had heard abut the contents of the book on a radio news bulletin as he travelled on his school bus.

Kate, wearing a black and pink floral dress, also told of the devastating effects the book had had on their family.

She said: “I believe after the book things got worse and were compounded because we were in a more desperate situation and felt defeated.”

As she finished her evidence Kate, 46, said: “I do believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe freedom of speech means the freedom to slander.”

Madeleine, who was nearly four, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3 2007.

Her parents say Amaral’s false allegations damaged the hunt for their daughter and increased their anguish.

But the former cop, 56, insists everything written in the book was already contained in the public police and court case files.

The hearing continues.

tasprin wrote:

plebgate wrote:

canada12 wrote:I don't actually think the fact (if it is a fact) that Sean mentioned something from GA's book to his mother counts as extreme distress, disharmony or whatever else the McCanns are suing for. If Sean had then gone on to have serious emotional issues, or had failing grades in school, or something like that, then perhaps Kate might have a slim case in suggesting GA's book has led to problems for her kids. As it stands, I do believe if she's going to make statements about her children, she'd really need to back those up by allowing the kids to testify about their emotional states. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and very weak hearsay (IMO). So really it can only be about Kate and Gerry's emotional states as a result of GA's book, and so far I haven't read or seen anything that convinces me they're suffering. I'm hoping the judge is perceptive enough to come to the same conclusion.

A child pyschologist's report would have helped a lot more than hearsay evidence imo.

Yes psychological assessments, medical or school reports would have carried some weight but, in interviews, they've always insisted the twins are fine.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
"We don't know if Madeleine is alive or dead but there is no evidence that she is dead and she is a missing child and she is completely innocent."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

??????????????????????

Sticks out a mile doesn't it. What a crashing, jarring comment.

Funnily enough I was party to a strange conversation at work (yes, I do, now and again...) last night.

A colleague is travelling to Lisbon for the Optimus festival. Another colleague said that she would never visit Portugal because of "what happened to that little girl". She then added after a few seconds "Even though the mother did it".