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

Justformaddie wrote:But does Eddie and Keela not rule that one out?

j.rob wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:But does Eddie and Keela not rule that one out?

Not necessarily. Madeleine 'was taken' out out of the apartment (or where-ever else she had been) some period prior to the arrival of the police. This was obviously a necessity if the abduction story was to carry weight and a Fund be set up to 'find' her. If police arrive and find an injured/ molested/dead or dying Madeleine - irrespective of who is responsible - then there is no need for a Fund to pay for endless worldwide searches for Madeleine.
It would be a child neglect/abuse/murder enquiry.

And one in which family/friends/acquaintances would have to be ruled out as key suspects. The McCanns and their friends wanted to avoid this at all costs, IMO.

Once 'they had taken' Madeleine away from the immediate environs, then the abduction story can be sprung upon the world media. The fund can be set up and the media full of stories of  sightings of bogey-men around the world. With the media and police focus far, far away from where it should be, IMO (and Portuguese police were sceptical of the abduction story from the start)  Madeleine (in whatever sad state she is in) is then  probably moved into different places. Several of which, if the sniffer dog evidence is of Madeleine's corpse - are the apartment and the hire car.

It is possible that she died outside the apartment but her body was brought back into the apartment whileit was decided what to do.

People who engage in criminal activity are not always going to get things right, however hard they try to conceal the evidence of their crime.

And don't forget: 'We have let her down.'

Just some thoughts about potential scenarios.

Just read the last post - kate saying that Amaral's book destroyed their hypothesis!?

WHAT???

Oh well, out of the horse's mouth, as always. Surely Kate means that the worst thing was that Amaral's book destroyed their hope of finding their daughter alive? 

But perhaps the worSt thing was the destruction of a hypothesis?

Now why would that be so bad?

Oh, of course - all those £££££s that were donated to 'support a hypothesis'.

I suppose Empires have crumbled on less.

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered anypothesy more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

jozi wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered anypothesy more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

   
So now its an ' Hypothesis " NOT AN ABDUCTION.......Deary deary me Kate you chop, we can all destroy your Hypothesis and GA and the Portuguese Police certainly did. So why are you taking him to court for libel if it was only your " Hypothesis ". 

Newintown wrote:

jozi wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered anypothesy more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

   
So now its an ' Hypothesis " NOT AN ABDUCTION.......Deary deary me Kate you chop, we can all destroy your Hypothesis and GA and the Portuguese Police certainly did. So why are you taking him to court for libel if it was only your " Hypothesis ". 

And morally was it right to start a multi £million search fund (or Ltd Co "support the McCann family" fund) on donations given mostly by the public on a "hypothesis".

Hypothesis  - from Encarta dictionary -
theory
premise
suggestion
supposition
proposition
guess
assumption

Oh dear Kate, you really have put the cat amongst the pigeons with that statement.   

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered any more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered any more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

missmar1 wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:From the excellent Joana M.  

Court 'report'

Judge - In the thesis presented on (in?) the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I felt that he destroyed OUR HYPOTHESIS"

'HYPOTHESIS', Kate?

YOU have told the WORLD, ad infinitum, that your daughter, Madeleine, had, incontrovertibly, been 'abducted' from your apartment, and you knew straight away that is what happened because you were there and knew more than anyone, that was the case, because of what you found.

HAS KM, under oath, NOW admitted that an 'abduction' may NOT have happened at all, but this is just a HYPOTHESIS the McCanns have, of what MAY have 'happened' to Madeleine?

And, if true, KH said THAT in a courtroom, under oath, it opens the McCanns up, totally, to examination of what OTHER hypothesis there could be about what 'happened' to Madeleine.

Even to the extent of 'hypothesis, thesis, theories' put forward by ex-detectives or ANYONE.

Why would the McCann 'hypothesis' be considered any more 'credible' than any other 'hypothesis' presented/suggested by anyone else?

" Our Hypothesis "   imo, had Kate and Gerry Mccann used those words when their daughter first disappeared they would not have been able to gag people in the way they have done for the last 7 years ........
My guess is Kate Mccann was fully aware the judge KNEW there was no evidence whatsoever to support their claims of abduction and Kate would have been advised by I Duarte not to say the abduction word in court in case the judge asked her how she could state for certain that their daughter was a victim of an abduction.   
It is my opinion only that Kate Mccann swapped the abduction word for the "hypothesis" one for the above reason.

canada12 wrote:Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypothesis.

Kate: "I knew immediately that Madeleine had been hypothesized!"

stillsloppingout wrote:It had been mentioned on this forum ,would under oath would they she mention the A word .
well there is your answer .
Throw in Gerrys trying to get his dogs point over, so the press would pick up on it( and create doubt about there reliability in the minds off the masses ,) because Gerry's word is always reported as gospel.
pity GO cannot take the stand major mistake that.

MRNOODLES wrote:Well it all goes to show why she chose to refuse to answer questions in the first place.

She can't think on her feet without putting her foot in it.

My opinion of course

canada12 wrote:Sorry, but the very nature of a hypothesis is that it's just a theory, and it requires proof to support its arguments.

If the "abduction" of Madeleine is defined as a hypothesis by Kate, then she cannot possibly sue anyone for libel if they challenge that hypothesis. Even if what's written causes her distress, annoyance, extreme apoplexy or foaming at the mouth. A hypothesis is an argument which invites challenge, discussion, research, proof, etc etc etc.

Case closed. Hypothesize your damages payout to Mr. Amaral, Kate.

jeanmonroe wrote:Just watching the 1947 'Brighton Rock' (multi tasking, watching TV and typing   ) and that character 'Pinkie' is a 'nasty, dispicable, lying, money grabbing, disgusting, creepy, snidey' piece of work, isn't he?

And now, in 2014, there's another 'Pinky' in Brighton!

What are the chances?    

jeanmonroe wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:It had been mentioned on this forum ,would under oath would they she mention the A word .
well there is your answer .
Throw in Gerrys trying to get his dogs point over, so the press would pick up on it( and create doubt about there reliability in the minds off the masses ,) because Gerry's word is always reported as gospel.
pity GO cannot take the stand major mistake that.

I REMIND everyone that THEY (G&KM) did NOT utter the 'A' words, in relation to Madeleine, under OATH, at Leveson.

I'm beginning to think that GA has played a 'blinder' by letting them 'take the stand' in Portugal and be questioned by a Judge, in a court, under oath.

He KNEW, just KNEW, their mouths would run away with BS.

Seems he was right.

GA has been 'dealing' with 'dodgy geezers' all his life, in his occupation, as a Police Officer.

KM has just about 'destroyed' their case against him, all by herself!

NO 'depression'
NO 'insommnia'
NO 'destroyed from social standing'
NO 'abduction' just a 'hypothesis'
No 'expertise' on EVRD dogs.
etc.,

I'd say, at present,

GA 7  McCanns 1 (well, they did turn up after all with their BS!)

All imo, obviously!

Newintown wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:It had been mentioned on this forum ,would under oath would they she mention the A word .
well there is your answer .
Throw in Gerrys trying to get his dogs point over, so the press would pick up on it( and create doubt about there reliability in the minds off the masses ,) because Gerry's word is always reported as gospel.
pity GO cannot take the stand major mistake that.

I REMIND everyone that THEY (G&KM) did NOT utter the 'A' words, in relation to Madeleine, under OATH, at Leveson.

I'm beginning to think that GA has played a 'blinder' by letting them 'take the stand' in Portugal and be questioned by a Judge, in a court, under oath.

He KNEW, just KNEW, their mouths would run away with BS.

Seems he was right.

GA has been 'dealing' with 'dodgy geezers' all his life, in his occupation, as a Police Officer.

KM has just about 'destroyed' their case against him, all by herself!

NO 'depression'
NO 'insommnia'
NO 'destroyed from social standing'
NO 'abduction' just a 'hypothesis'
No 'expertise' on EVRD dogs.
etc.,

I'd say, at present,

GA 7  McCanns 1 (well, they did turn up after all with their BS!)

All imo, obviously!

Did you mean Portugal not Leveson?

Anyway, GM did mention abduction outside the court though to the waiting press (I don't know if that makes any difference to the libel hearing) -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UPDATES ONLY LIBEL TRIAL 8TH JULY 2014

ultimaThule wrote:

snipped/

Gerry McCann: Well, you know, we can't comment on any specific details but what we are more than happy to say is we're really, really pleased that there is active investigation going on and, you know, it's taken a long time - the Met have been reviewing things for three years. Errr... We've had feedback from the Metropolitan Police - they were pleased with the way things have gone, errm... and we want that work to continue. There are a lot of lines of inquiry that need followed and, as parents, I mean, what we're... what we've asked for all along really is that anything that is reasonable to be done that may help find Madeleine and catch those responsible for her abduction is done. And, as parents, that's all we're asking and we felt there was a lot to be done and we... we want to make it clear, you know, it is a very complex investigation. It's a huge dossier, errm... and we just want as much as possible to be worked through.
Martin Brunt: Kate, what do you feel you've...
Portuguese journalist: [talking over] Do you think those steps in Algarve from British investigators... investigators can help repair all the damage the book and the documentary made, or do you see or hear that people in the Algarve start to say: "What are we doing here?"
Gerry McCann: Well, I think the worse thing is, that we were told that, errr... someone in Praia da Luz wrote: 'The parents are murderers', when this work was taking place, and if that is reflected, errr... in the general population it's devastating.
Kate McCann: I mean, that was spray painted on the wall in Luz, just a few weeks ago.
Gerry McCann: So, I mean, what we hope... we think, you know, there has been a tremendous amount of damage but we hope the public - the general population - will see the PJ are investigating, the Metropolitan Police are investigating, they will look at it and say what the criminal file said. You know, we... we don't know whether Madeleine's alive or dead but there is no evidence that she's dead and she's a missing child, and she's completely innocent. And more importantly than... well, there's... for us, there's nothing more important than that, but the next more important thing is whoever took Madeleine is still out there, and whoever that person is, or... or persons, they must have been laughing during these last six years, at what's been told in the book - that there was no abduction, that there's... you know, there's no predator out there. There is. And he may s... he, or she, or they, may strike again. And, you know, there's an unsolved serious crime and there's a series of other crimes against children which have come to light, errm... who have been on holiday. So, you know, at the very least, these people need to be brought to justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

GM may not have actually said the word "abduction" in court, but he is still spouting it on the steps of the court, which is on tape never to be forgotten.  I wonder how that would be perceived by the Judge, seeing it is a complete contradiction as to what KM spouted in court.