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

by Rasputin 09.07.14 10:31

Ive just read the locked Libel trial update thread ...I noted this from the quoted piece ....

“I think that was on the radio on
the way to school because they go
on the school bus."

Did she really say that ?... Kate only THINKS he heard it on the bus ?....she doesn't ask Sean to clarify this serious statement but has no problem stating something without fact at a Libel trial , am I wrong in seeing this ???

by Guest 09.07.14 10:35

Bishop Ellis Primary school is 2.7 miles from Rothley.

School bus fire Bishop Ellis primary school.

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

They use coaches.

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

We also have a named coach driver in the article.

by MRNOODLES 09.07.14 10:37

Rasputin wrote:Ive just read the locked Libel trial update thread ...I noted this from the quoted piece ....

“I think that was on the radio on
the way to school because they go
on the school bus."

Did she really say that ?... Kate only THINKS he heard it on the bus ?....she doesn't ask Sean to clarify this serious statement but has no problem stating something without fact at a Libel trial , am I wrong in seeing this ???

No at all, it's a steaming pile of bovine poo....imo.

by MRNOODLES 09.07.14 10:40

BlueBag wrote:Bishop Ellis Primary school is 2.7 miles from Rothley.

School bus fire Bishop Ellis primary school.

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

They use coaches.

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

We also have a named coach driver in the article.

There's a giant terminator alien creature in the smoke and flames. eek

by True Liberty 09.07.14 10:41

So Kate and the school carefully monitor what the twins have access to.
Now to me that shows they don't know children very well.
Because they might make it so that the computers won't come up with certain search results in the classroom but how on earth are you going to stop children whose parents are questioning the events, who discuss at the table, how do they think they will stop those children from mentioning the theories.
Children are not kind especially when bulldozed into keeping silent about something.

I think far more damage was done to Shaun when as a tiny being, amidst the horror of his sister going missing he was left alone whilst his parents went to see the pope.

Please end this charade now.

And off topic but highly relevant I pray for the nation of Gaza right now.

by Dont Make Me Laff 09.07.14 10:41

BlueBag wrote:Bishop Ellis Primary school is 2.7 miles from Rothley.

School bus fire Bishop Ellis primary school.

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

They use coaches.

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

We also have a named coach driver in the article.

Maybe the radio short circuited and caught fire lol4

by jozi 09.07.14 10:43

" The Judge at beginning of hearing sessions spoke and instructed the scribe about the request that had been made by Gonçalo Amaral’s previous lawyer so the defendant could be heard in court. That request was opposed by the McCann couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, and had been previously denied by the Judge in 2013.

The McCann couple, who had also requested to be heard in court, saw their application being refused as well. Yet they pleaded against that decision to the Appeals court and their request was granted, therefore they were now authorized to be heard in court, which is what takes place after this “introductory” instruction by the lady Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro.

The Judge then added that since Gonçalo Amaral’s former lawyer did not oppose to the ruling - which refused his request to be heard - a new appeal opposing the ruling could no longer be accepted, and therefore that decision had now become final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to the above The Mcs lawyer opposed the request of GA"s lawyer for GA to speak in Court and because it was denied already by the Judge in 2013 they denied him the right to speak !!!

Am I reading this right that the Mcs opposed GA the right to be heard in court but then appealed their denial and got permission to speak ???

by Rasputin 09.07.14 10:44

He's parked on double yellas too !!

by Guest 09.07.14 10:50

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
PeterMac wrote:I love the difference between the sizes of the type.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yes and I particularly like the 'Mullered' in yellow type at the top.

Don't know about anybody else but my eyes are just drawn to that every time I look at it.

Lets hope so.

Yes, a lovely touch there!! The Mirror are no friends of the McCanns, they have a score to settle after all. The forum about the McCanns brought thousands of extra people and footfall to their site, and when they were made to close it down wouldn't have been happy bunnies

Yes exactly S&M - what's that saying about being nice to people on the way up because on the way back down you are going to get ...what was it now ...shafted?

IMO the Mcs have made a lot of enemies, I cannot wait for them to get their comeupance - or should that be their 'tuppenceworth' Kate?

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

by Claire25 09.07.14 10:54

I do hope social services are involved in safeguarding the twins as they're so vulnerable. I don't think the Gaspar statements will ever become widely known because I don't see how the authorities could justify leaving the twins in the McCann's care, whilst knowing about that. Poor children, don't stand a chance with role models like them.

by Dont Make Me Laff 09.07.14 10:56

What I can't understand is if Portuguese Police Chief Inspector Victor Tavares de Almeida Interim Report,10 Sept 2007 "From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine's corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place." (snipped from this forum head line) then surely the McCanns would have known about this? therefore are they not suing the wrong person?

by Guest 09.07.14 10:59

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:What I can't understand is if
Portuguese Police Chief Inspector Victor Tavares de Almeida Interim Report, 10 Sept 2007: "From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine's corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place." (snipped from this forum head line) - then surely the McCanns would have known about this ?
therefore are they not suing the wrong person?

EXACTLY!!!!

Is it a crime to repeat what the official investigation "established" and published?

There is NO WAY Amaral can be sued.

by jeanmonroe 09.07.14 11:05

The BIG Question.

DID Sean TELL Amelie about what he 'heard' on the bus?

eg: They are in playing in garden, mummy in house.

WHEN mommy dearest wasn't 'monitoring' them talking to each other laughat

Can you image?

Everytime KM sees Sean or Amelie 'talking' to someone, ANYONE, she dosen't 'know'?

What did he/she say to you?

What were you two/three kids taliking about Sean/Amelie?

Were you talking about Madeleine?

The more kids are TOLD not to do 'something' the more they want to do that 'somethng', imo.

I KNOW.................. I DID!

KM cannot 'control' the things her kids will hear and see and 'discover' when she's 'not there'

just to add: On the 'predator/abductor' HE, SHE or THEY as Mr McCann said outside court.

I DO believe that was a 'coded' er, 'message' to JT and the rest of the T7. (encompassing ALL of THEM, not just a 'HE' as the McCanns have 'insisted' on these last & years)

KEEP SCHTUM or.......

all imo, obviously.

ps: Are 'we', not the McCanns, as they are far to 'busy', NOW suppose to be 'looking for' beware

.......TANNERWOMAN...or..... beware

SMITHWOMAN!....... thinking

by jozi 09.07.14 11:09

BlueBag wrote:
Dont Make Me Laff wrote:What I can't understand is if
Portuguese Police Chief Inspector Victor Tavares de Almeida Interim Report, 10 Sept 2007: "From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine's corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place." (snipped from this forum head line) - then surely the McCanns would have known about this ?
therefore are they not suing the wrong person?

EXACTLY!!!!

Is it a crime to repeat what the official investigation "established" and published?

There is NO WAY Amaral can be sued.

Really, surly all the lawyers and the Judge would know that ?

by Dont Make Me Laff 09.07.14 11:11

you'd think so.

by Woofer 09.07.14 11:15

jozi wrote:" The Judge at beginning of hearing sessions spoke and instructed the scribe about the request that had been made by Gonçalo Amaral’s previous lawyer so the defendant could be heard in court. That request was opposed by the McCann couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, and had been previously denied by the Judge in 2013.

The McCann couple, who had also requested to be heard in court, saw their application being refused as well. Yet they pleaded against that decision to the Appeals court and their request was granted, therefore they were now authorized to be heard in court, which is what takes place after this “introductory” instruction by the lady Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro.

The Judge then added that since Gonçalo Amaral’s former lawyer did not oppose to the ruling - which refused his request to be heard - a new appeal opposing the ruling could no longer be accepted, and therefore that decision had now become final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to the above The Mcs lawyer opposed the request of GA"s lawyer for GA to speak in Court and because it was denied already by the Judge in 2013 they denied him the right to speak !!!

Am I reading this right that the Mcs opposed GA the right to be heard in court but then appealed their denial and got permission to speak ???

Yes, that worries me as well - seems as if the Judge is allowing the McCanns plenty of concessions but not GA.

Also a couple of posters have queried about the Ward of Court proofs that the McCanns had to provide - doesn`t seem to have been mentioned ... as yet.

by canada12 09.07.14 11:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/quote]

The furiously furrowed forehead and resolutely set mouth are trying to convey anguish and distress.
The eyes are cold and without emotion.
In my humble opinion.

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

by Dont Make Me Laff 09.07.14 11:19

Woofer said "Yes, that worries me as well - seems as if the Judge is allowing the McCanns plenty of concessions but not GA"

Judges are not stupid. IMO - She will listen with great amusement whilst K & G trip them selves up over their ever lasting fast mouths which start working before their brains engage.

by lufc50337 09.07.14 11:25

Woofer wrote:
jozi wrote:" The Judge at beginning of hearing sessions spoke and instructed the scribe about the request that had been made by Gonçalo Amaral’s previous lawyer so the defendant could be heard in court. That request was opposed by the McCann couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, and had been previously denied by the Judge in 2013.

The McCann couple, who had also requested to be heard in court, saw their application being refused as well. Yet they pleaded against that decision to the Appeals court and their request was granted, therefore they were now authorized to be heard in court, which is what takes place after this “introductory” instruction by the lady Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro.

The Judge then added that since Gonçalo Amaral’s former lawyer did not oppose to the ruling - which refused his request to be heard - a new appeal opposing the ruling could no longer be accepted, and therefore that decision had now become final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to the above The Mcs lawyer opposed the request of GA"s lawyer for GA to speak in Court and because it was denied already by the Judge in 2013 they denied him the right to speak !!!

Am I reading this right that the Mcs opposed GA the right to be heard in court but then appealed their denial and got permission to speak ???

Yes, that worries me as well - seems as if the Judge is allowing the McCanns plenty of concessions but not GA.

Also a couple of posters have queried about the Ward of Court proofs that the McCanns had to provide - doesn`t seem to have been mentioned ... as yet.

I actually see that as a good thing, they can't cry unfair treatment or due process not followed if the ruling doesn't go their way as they have been given more concessions than GA

by jeanmonroe 09.07.14 11:27

jozi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Dont Make Me Laff wrote:What I can't understand is if
Portuguese Police Chief Inspector Victor Tavares de Almeida Interim Report, 10 Sept 2007: "From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine's corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place." (snipped from this forum head line) - then surely the McCanns would have known about this ?
therefore are they not suing the wrong person?

EXACTLY!!!!

Is it a crime to repeat what the official investigation "established" and published?

There is NO WAY Amaral can be sued.
Really, surly all the lawyers and the Judge would know that ?

The Judge CERTAINLY 'KNOWS' that and ALL the LAWYERS, McCanns LAWYER, ID included, 'KNOW' that..

The final PJ 'report' was submitted as 'evidence' in the libel case very early on.

And, i think, relevent and pertinent 'parts' of it were 'discussed' with various McCann 'witnesses', during their given testimony.

The obvious one, if i recall, is that almost ALL of the McCann 'witnesses' were asked, during their 'evidence' testimony, "HAVE YOU READ ACTUALLY THE FINAL PJ REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS?"

To which SOME 'witnesses' answered YES and some answered NO.

IIRC.

by jozi 09.07.14 11:28

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Woofer said "Yes, that worries me as well - seems as if the Judge is allowing the McCanns plenty of concessions but not GA"

Judges are not stupid. IMO - She will listen with great amusement whilst K & G trip them selves up over their ever lasting fast mouths which start working before their brains engage.

You could be right thumbup

by Justformaddie 09.07.14 11:36

Plus, just look at GA coming out of the court with thumbs up...... He's happy I'm happy!

by Praiaaa 09.07.14 11:43

Not only are judges not stupid they know all the tricks in the book.
As well as being judges, they have ben lawyers, and then deployed, or seen deployed by opponents, all the tricks in the book.
Typical of TM to believe themselves better than the experts in all fields - policing/PR/TV appearances/law.
I suspect they are give advice, but choose to ignore it as they know best.
Judges want to avoid their judgements being turned over on appeal on a technicality - hence giving the McCs plenty of rope, so to speak...
IMO.

by Guest 09.07.14 11:46

Km certainly scored a home goal yesterday. Because if few people knew about GA's book before certainly most of the country will know now. What a great headline.
It's a good as a full on advertising campaign.
If I hadn't read The Truth of The Lie before I would certainly be prompted to have a look online.
And after GM's little tirade about dogs and blood I know what chapter I would be studying first.
No wonder GA looks happy.

by Bishop Brennan 09.07.14 11:46

Actually this part of the court transcript from Joana Morais is more of a concern:

"... the McCann couple - have requested the court to solicit an official application to ATA [Autoridade Tributária Aduaneira] i.e. the Portuguese equivalent to the IRS, in order to obtain confidential fiscal information.

The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro authorized and ordered for the dispatch to be prepared “since it is essential to know, within the scope of the case being analysed here at the court, what are the eventual earnings” of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral regarding the sales of the book ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’. "

That, to me, sounds ominous. The claims are for fixed amounts of money (we are told) per person. Why then would the earnings be of relevance?

by jeanmonroe 09.07.14 12:00

Questions:

Have the McCanns been totally 'mis-leading' the Great British 'public' DONATORS to their 'fund' and indeed ALL people that have 'visited' their FindMadeleine 'website', these past 7 YEARS, by only portraying a MAN (Tannerman) as a 'suspect' 'seen' carrying off Madeleine, by JT?

With GM's er, um, REVELATORY 'introduction', yesterday, 8th July 2014, of a SHE, as a possible 'predator/abductor' WHY is there no e-fit, similar to TannerMAN, of this supposed 'she' predator/abductor prominately displayed on the McCann's Official FindMadeleine website?

Why has NO ONE, not even the McCann's themselves, ever said that the Great British public or anyone in the world should 'look out/search for' a WOMAN (she) 'suspect' who could of 'abducted' Madeleine?

All very ODD, imo.

GM's 'he, she, they' totally aimed at the T7!

all imo, obviously.

by jozi 09.07.14 12:03

Bishop Brennan wrote:Actually this part of the court transcript from Joana Morais is more of a concern:

"... the McCann couple - have requested the court to solicit an official application to ATA [Autoridade Tributária Aduaneira] i.e. the Portuguese equivalent to the IRS, in order to obtain confidential fiscal information.

The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro authorized and ordered for the dispatch to be prepared “since it is essential to know, within the scope of the case being analysed here at the court, what are the eventual earnings” of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral regarding the sales of the book ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’. "

That, to me, sounds ominous. The claims are for fixed amounts of money (we are told) per person. Why then would the earnings be of relevance?

Yes quite but it says further down that they can appeal !!!

...Earlier on this year, the only defendant party opposing the McCann’s fiscal request was the lawyer for the Guerra e Paz book publishers who argued that this new application would cause an unnecessary lengthening of the trial.

So why is GA's lawyer not appealing ?

by Dont Make Me Laff 09.07.14 12:07

Exactly!
I don't remember there has ever before been mention of a SHE - are we to presume that this takes on another dimension and all must now go back to the drawing board and start looking for a SHE?
oh dear oh dear!
GA said it would be dangerous to try to bring about a new theory and GM has done just that in his latest mouth marathon!
imo

by MRNOODLES 09.07.14 12:07

jeanmonroe wrote:Questions:

Have the McCanns been totally 'mis-leading' the Great British 'public' and indeed ALL people that have 'visited' their FindMadeleine 'website', these past 7 YEARS, by only portraying a MAN (Tannerman) as a 'suspect' 'seen' carrying off Madeleine, by JT?

With GM's er, um, REVELATORY 'introduction', yesterday, 8th July 2014, of a SHE, as a possible 'predator/abductor' WHY is there no e-fit, similar to TannerMAN, of this supposed 'she' predator/abductor prominately displayed on the McCann's Official FindMadeleine website?

Why has NO ONE, not even the McCann's themselves, ever said that the Great British public or anyone in the world should 'look out/search for' a WOMAN (she) 'suspect' who could of 'abducted' Madeleine?

All very ODD, imo.

GM's 'he, she, they' totally aimed at the T7!

all imo, obviously.

Plus Gerry's ill thought out mutterings of the predator may strike again could have the twins s***ing bricks. They've been told the abductor took maddie while they slept. So therefore it's not too much of a stretch for them to think, 'are they coming back for us at some point?'

by Guest 09.07.14 12:07

jeanmonroe wrote:Questions:

Have the McCanns been totally 'mis-leading' the Great British 'public' DONATORS to their 'fund' and indeed ALL people that have 'visited' their FindMadeleine 'website', these past 7 YEARS, by only portraying a MAN (Tannerman) as a 'suspect' 'seen' carrying off Madeleine, by JT?

With GM's er, um, REVELATORY 'introduction', yesterday, 8th July 2014, of a SHE, as a possible 'predator/abductor' WHY is there no e-fit, similar to TannerMAN, of this supposed 'she' predator/abductor prominately displayed on the McCann's Official FindMadeleine website?

Why has NO ONE, not even the McCann's themselves, ever said that the Great British public or anyone in the world should 'look out/search for' a WOMAN (she) 'suspect' who could of 'abducted' Madeleine?

All very ODD, imo.

GM's 'he, she, they' totally aimed at the T7!

all imo, obviously.

I seem to recall that one of their detectives (the one with enormous hands) did suggest that the "man" Jane Tanner saw might be a woman. This was around the time they were publicising the Posh Spice lookalike in Barcelona as a key suspect. Indeed, "Posh" is still on their website as an unidentified person they wish to identify.

Latest topics