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

lj wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Joana's transcript - judge questions Mr.

"Judge - Did you suffer from insomnia?

Gerald McCann - Yes, we didn't sleep well for many nights because of the anxiety caused by the book.


I wonder exactly how many nights?   Was it more than when Maddie went missing? - we have read that they could sleep after 5 nights then.

Insomnia is a difficult thing. A lot of people think they sleep less than they actually do, especially when the insomnia is caused by worries.

Proof would be a sleepstudy, but there too there is no independent expert input.

MrsC wrote: 

Brian Griffin wrote: A match made is 'Evven.

...or more likely 'ell.

Brian Griffin wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

nglfi wrote:I think the reason they've gone after Amaral rather than the other authors (Well, their stated reason anyway), is that as the official police officer in charge of the case, his opinions and statements hold a lot more weight in the mind of the general public. People are apparently entitled to 'purport theories', but I think they thought it would be easy prey to go after Amaral for this reason and assumed he would settle out of court.

ETA Is it just me or is the word 'purport' used incorrectly by Gerry here? It's something I've always thought doesn't sound right.

As their experience hitherto has been that anyone or any institution they've threatened with libel action in the UK has rolled over, it seems to me the McCanns assumed the same would apply if they went after Dr Amaral, ngfli, but it appears they not only underestimated him, they also made a severe error in naming three other parties in the proceedings they've instituted in the Portuguese courts.

Can you please link to Gerry's use of the word 'purport'?

A lot of things Gerry says don't sound right. For example, to my ears it sounds as though he is saying 'hit' rather than 'hid' in that interview outside the courts - I mean the latest one. That thick Glaswegian accent is hardly a thing of beauty. Neither is her Scouse for that matter. A match made is 'Evven.

HelenMeg wrote:

FH wrote:

jozi wrote:"GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true. 

This statement is just bizarre, especially for a medic.

Entry to medical school in the UK is very competitive. Most students go into medicine directly from school and exam entry requirements to study medicine were high,  well before the MC's  went to medical school, so one has to assume they are both bright enough to  attain really good exam qualifications. The degree itself is quite challenging. The absolute key to good exam technique  is to read/listen to/analyze  the question being asked really carefully and then answer the question you were asked.

I come from a family containing  many medical professionals. In addition,  for a number of years I supervised medical students in chemistry labs.  I have generally found them to be very smart and very articulate, with very good verbal reasoning skills. Not all were personable, or likeable, but they all knew how to answer questions. They had to memorize vast quantities of facts  and accurately answer questions on it.  It was the skill that got them where they were all through their studies. 

So how is it that every time I read what the MC's have said, I REALLY struggle to understand how these 2 people (and the rest of the tapas lot) , who must have demonstrated a really good ability to answer questions in the past ,  could possibly have such a poor command of the English language now. Whether they are answering questions, or making statements, they often appear totally inarticulate. 

To me there is a huge discrepancy between their expected vs. actual verbal abilities. These are people who  REALLY  should be able to form an articulate, factual answer.

So why do they sometimes come across as complete morons? Is that what happens when a brain that is used to dealing in hard facts, tries to lie.
They don't seem able to string two words together coherently.

FH - I think that is exactly what happens when a brain is having to lie. I thoroughly agree - when you read through the rogatory statements of this group of doctors, they appear inarticulate, vague and like bumbling idiots. Clearly, they are not. The only explanation for this is that they are not permitted to talk as in direct memory recall. They are always having to make allowances for the fact that there is a script that they are following. They are clearly not comfortable and having to think twice before they speak. Most telling for me was when Jenni Murray (Woman's Hour R4 - link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01115hc)

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'
 
Kate: (Very Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.
 
Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question? The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be?

phil_burton wrote:Does anyone have a transcript of Gerry's statement?

Apologies if I've missed it, I can't find it anywhere

ultimaThule wrote:

nglfi wrote:I think the reason they've gone after Amaral rather than the other authors (Well, their stated reason anyway), is that as the official police officer in charge of the case, his opinions and statements hold a lot more weight in the mind of the general public. People are apparently entitled to 'purport theories', but I think they thought it would be easy prey to go after Amaral for this reason and assumed he would settle out of court.

ETA Is it just me or is the word 'purport' used incorrectly by Gerry here? It's something I've always thought doesn't sound right.

As their experience hitherto has been that anyone or any institution they've threatened with libel action in the UK has rolled over, it seems to me the McCanns assumed the same would apply if they went after Dr Amaral, ngfli, but it appears they not only underestimated him, they also made a severe error in naming three other parties in the proceedings they've instituted in the Portuguese courts.

Can you please link to Gerry's use of the word 'purport'?

nglfi wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

nglfi wrote:I think the reason they've gone after Amaral rather than the other authors (Well, their stated reason anyway), is that as the official police officer in charge of the case, his opinions and statements hold a lot more weight in the mind of the general public. People are apparently entitled to 'purport theories', but I think they thought it would be easy prey to go after Amaral for this reason and assumed he would settle out of court.

ETA Is it just me or is the word 'purport' used incorrectly by Gerry here? It's something I've always thought doesn't sound right.

As their experience hitherto has been that anyone or any institution they've threatened with libel action in the UK has rolled over, it seems to me the McCanns assumed the same would apply if they went after Dr Amaral, ngfli, but it appears they not only underestimated him, they also made a severe error in naming three other parties in the proceedings they've instituted in the Portuguese courts.

Can you please link to Gerry's use of the word 'purport'?

I heard him say it on a video, I think it was on youtube. He said something like 'I've got no problem with people purporting theories, but....' and then went on to criticise Sr Amaral. I will try and find a link to the video.

candyfloss wrote:

phil_burton wrote:Does anyone have a transcript of Gerry's statement?

Apologies if I've missed it, I can't find it anywhere

Last post on this link.....

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10004p20-updates-only-libel-trial-8th-july-2014#268790

lj wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

FH wrote:

jozi wrote:"GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true. 

This statement is just bizarre, especially for a medic.

Entry to medical school in the UK is very competitive. Most students go into medicine directly from school and exam entry requirements to study medicine were high,  well before the MC's  went to medical school, so one has to assume they are both bright enough to  attain really good exam qualifications. The degree itself is quite challenging. The absolute key to good exam technique  is to read/listen to/analyze  the question being asked really carefully and then answer the question you were asked.

I come from a family containing  many medical professionals. In addition,  for a number of years I supervised medical students in chemistry labs.  I have generally found them to be very smart and very articulate, with very good verbal reasoning skills. Not all were personable, or likeable, but they all knew how to answer questions. They had to memorize vast quantities of facts  and accurately answer questions on it.  It was the skill that got them where they were all through their studies. 

So how is it that every time I read what the MC's have said, I REALLY struggle to understand how these 2 people (and the rest of the tapas lot) , who must have demonstrated a really good ability to answer questions in the past ,  could possibly have such a poor command of the English language now. Whether they are answering questions, or making statements, they often appear totally inarticulate. 

To me there is a huge discrepancy between their expected vs. actual verbal abilities. These are people who  REALLY  should be able to form an articulate, factual answer.

So why do they sometimes come across as complete morons? Is that what happens when a brain that is used to dealing in hard facts, tries to lie.
They don't seem able to string two words together coherently.

FH - I think that is exactly what happens when a brain is having to lie. I thoroughly agree - when you read through the rogatory statements of this group of doctors, they appear inarticulate, vague and like bumbling idiots. Clearly, they are not. The only explanation for this is that they are not permitted to talk as in direct memory recall. They are always having to make allowances for the fact that there is a script that they are following. They are clearly not comfortable and having to think twice before they speak. Most telling for me was when Jenni Murray (Woman's Hour R4 - link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01115hc)

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'
 
Kate: (Very Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.
 
Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question? The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be?

That was so revealing. If I ever had any doubt about their involvement, that took it all away.

ultimaThule wrote:

lj wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

FH wrote:

jozi wrote:"GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true. 

This statement is just bizarre, especially for a medic.

Entry to medical school in the UK is very competitive. Most students go into medicine directly from school and exam entry requirements to study medicine were high,  well before the MC's  went to medical school, so one has to assume they are both bright enough to  attain really good exam qualifications. The degree itself is quite challenging. The absolute key to good exam technique  is to read/listen to/analyze  the question being asked really carefully and then answer the question you were asked.

I come from a family containing  many medical professionals. In addition,  for a number of years I supervised medical students in chemistry labs.  I have generally found them to be very smart and very articulate, with very good verbal reasoning skills. Not all were personable, or likeable, but they all knew how to answer questions. They had to memorize vast quantities of facts  and accurately answer questions on it.  It was the skill that got them where they were all through their studies. 

So how is it that every time I read what the MC's have said, I REALLY struggle to understand how these 2 people (and the rest of the tapas lot) , who must have demonstrated a really good ability to answer questions in the past ,  could possibly have such a poor command of the English language now. Whether they are answering questions, or making statements, they often appear totally inarticulate. 

To me there is a huge discrepancy between their expected vs. actual verbal abilities. These are people who  REALLY  should be able to form an articulate, factual answer.

So why do they sometimes come across as complete morons? Is that what happens when a brain that is used to dealing in hard facts, tries to lie.
They don't seem able to string two words together coherently.

FH - I think that is exactly what happens when a brain is having to lie. I thoroughly agree - when you read through the rogatory statements of this group of doctors, they appear inarticulate, vague and like bumbling idiots. Clearly, they are not. The only explanation for this is that they are not permitted to talk as in direct memory recall. They are always having to make allowances for the fact that there is a script that they are following. They are clearly not comfortable and having to think twice before they speak. Most telling for me was when Jenni Murray (Woman's Hour R4 - link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01115hc)

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'
 
Kate: (Very Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.
 
Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question? The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be?

That was so revealing. If I ever had any doubt about their involvement, that took it all away.

I find it hard to believe how anyone hearing either of the McCanns speak about their eldest daughter can have any doubt as to their complicity in her disappearance, lj, and it seems to me there's no shortage of revealing 'one off' statements which are sufficient to convince even the most doubting of Thomases.

phil_burton wrote:J

candyfloss wrote:

phil_burton wrote:Does anyone have a transcript of Gerry's statement?

Apologies if I've missed it, I can't find it anywhere

Last post on this link.....

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10004p20-updates-only-libel-trial-8th-july-2014#268790

Thank you.

GMC bringing up the dogs just shows how much they wish to discredit the findings. Me thinks he doth protest too much!

It signals an annoyance. Perhaps they didn't clean it we'll enough and are annoyed that some traces of blood were found.

Can we re-post the evidence of blood being found, just so there ambiguity?

ultimaThule wrote:

I find it hard to believe how anyone hearing either of the McCanns speak about their eldest daughter can have any doubt as to their complicity in her disappearance, lj, and it seems to me there's no shortage of revealing 'one off' statements which are sufficient to convince even the most doubting of Thomases.

Judge – What about the public in the UK?
GMC says that, thanks to the legal actions, the content of the book hasn't been published by the MSM, but small minority groups, in the UK, have launched campaigns of persecution against them, based on the book.
Judge – Can you name them?
GMC – Yes, we had legal actions against the Madeleine Foundation and the name is Anthony Bennett.
Judge – What relation exists between this group and the publication of the book?
GMC says that AB used parts of the book, interviewed Gonçalo Amaral and invited him on a forum.
Judge – Did the group exist before the publication?
GMC isn't sure about that. But he's able to say that the material they used was based on the allegations of the book. They published pamphlets that said that Madeleine hadn't been abducted. They distributed them to his neighbours and in the whole Leicestershire. This led AB to receive many warnings from his juridical counsels and finally to be sued.

Gerald McCann - Can I make a statement?

Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist on a series of questions put by the lawyers and judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

Gerald McCann - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge - [interrupts] We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.

Gerald McCann - But the book states that as a fact!

Judge - To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:
So obvious the Judge is wondering why they picked on Goncalo`s book.

So obviously the Judge is WONDERING WHY they ONLY picked on GA's book.

And also obvious by extension, is that the judge has prepared herself, with evidence, and a very full consideration of the background
and is not merely relying on what the lawyers tell her.
We tend in the UK to think that our Accusatorial system is the way the rest of the world works.
It isn't.
She is demonstrating par excellence, the inquisitorial system, where she needs to know everything,
She knows about books of which Gerry, probably correctly, says he had no knowledge.

Well done.  Clever Judge.  

I don't believe for a minute, with their MMU (aka Kevin) they have not read the other books. I don't believe it for a second.

PeterMac wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Where is Amelie in this? Is she mute? Inconsequential? Seemingly transparent like Maddie?

Whooshed !

Woofer wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:Interesting that it is the judge asking those questions.
Give me hope.

So obvious the Judge is wondering why they picked on Goncalo`s book.

Garrincha wrote:This is what I can’t get my head around:
 
Even after TM’s so-called “witnesses” testified there seems to be not one piece of (even prima facie) evidence to support this action. It seems to be hearsay from start to finish.
 
Yet TM have been able to freeze GA’s resources & tie him up in a case for over 5 years (I believe) – how??
 
How did this case even get to court in the first instance?
 
Is there not some threshold level regarding prima facie evidence which must be reached beforehand?
 
Why was this case even entertained in the first instance by the Portuguese courts?
 
And how on earth can it still remained unresolved after all this time?
 

And how on earth is it possible that there is still a chance GA will lose (as it appears there is)?