Next Trial Date

by espeland 01.12.14 18:22

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 favorites

Well well. Same time as SY's next visit too. Presumably K&G won't be there.

by aiyoyo 01.12.14 18:26

Mr & Mrs 'pants on fire' definitely won't go if they don't have to.
I wonder whether SY is going to conclude its criminal investigation to coincide with civil case verdict date or just ahead of it?

by sallypelt 01.12.14 18:29

espeland wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 favorites

Well well. Same time as SY's next visit too. Presumably K&G won't be there.

It's too much of a coincidence that the libel trial resumes next week, at the same time that SY is out there. What IS going on?

by Liz Eagles 01.12.14 18:38

Verdict expected in February!

I wonder who gave Martin (I doorstepped Brenda Leyland but now I'm ok) Brunt that information?

by Guest 01.12.14 18:45

Is it a libel trial? I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM. Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time. Thanks.

by NickE 01.12.14 19:15

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

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.14 19:23

NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather

by margaret 01.12.14 19:24

NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How co- incidental, the same time at SY are re interviewing people.

Any chance the Mccanns will be in Portugal for ~~questioning~~ the final legal arguments?

by Guest 01.12.14 19:29

Will the Mcs need to be there, or just the lawyers?

by Guest 01.12.14 19:30

margaret wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How co- incidental, the same time at SY are re interviewing people.

Any chance the Mccanns will be in Portugal for ~~questioning~~ the final legal arguments?

It's to save them making childcare arrangements twice margaret big grin

by Liz Eagles 01.12.14 19:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather

Oh, and in between, the Limited Company accounts are due for publication.

by Carrry On Doctor 01.12.14 19:32

Don't forget your toothbrush !

We can dream...

by NickE 01.12.14 19:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather

Yes Tony, and in my opinion is witnesses like Hill, Batista and Murat not "dream witnesses" for the couple from Rothley.

by Carrry On Doctor 01.12.14 19:47

Interesting how this story broke.....I wonder if Martin Brunt is keen to right some wrongs ?

IMO

by Guest 01.12.14 20:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather

Nobody could have predicted this.

Oh hang on...

by **sharonl** 01.12.14 20:53

aquila wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather
Oh, and in between, the Limited Company accounts are due for publication.

That's Smethursts' department. He signs the accounts off, he's important winkwink

by jeanmonroe 02.12.14 0:36

What 'arguments'?

The GA AND the 2 (TWO) broadcasters, TV1 and VCFilms, 'truth' OR the McS 'lie'?

NO 'arguments' there, i wouldn't have thought!

by Bishop Brennan 02.12.14 8:09

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@skymartinbrunt
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness!

The final date of this trial will be in the very week that DCI Redwood and his team are out there in Portugal ~~building evidence that will lead to an arrest, charging someone and a conviction~~ generating a series of front page headlines in the British press to continue to influence public perception.

Knock me down with a feather
Nobody could have predicted this.

Oh hang on...

Keeping the whitewash option well and truly open and very much alive. The trial is the only area they don't seem to be able to influence, and so the tactic is to use diversion and misdirection just in case unhelpful news comes out from it. It's really just amazing that the MSM have not realised that every recent court date has coincided with an SY visit - with some visits (such as this one) being deliberately delayed simply to match them up.

by aiyoyo 02.12.14 9:11

Place a bet which of the two will dominate front page headline next week!

Re-interview vs libel case.

I bet on the re-interview.

by **PeterMac** 02.12.14 9:22

But the dogs didn't find anything, they really didn't, they were wrong ' they are notoriously unreliable really, honestly they were acting, they were playing to the camera

No, McCann, curse thyself, curse Lucifer,
That hath deprived thee of the joys of heaven.
The clock strikes twelve.
Oh, it strikes, it strikes! Now body turn to air,
Or Lucifer will bear thee quick to hell.
Oh soul, be changed into little water drops
And fall into the ocean, ne'er be found.
My God, my God, look not so fierce on me.
Adders and serpents, let me breathe awhile.
Ugly hell, gape not, come not, Lucifer!

by **PeterMac** 02.12.14 9:42

Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her, drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

by aiyoyo 02.12.14 10:11

PeterMac wrote:But the dogs didn't find anything, they really didn't, they were wrong ' they are notoriously unreliable really, honestly they were acting, they were playing to the camera

Gerry really wanted to believe that. Moreover he wanted the whole world to believe him, so much so he took the initiative (after he was dismissed to get off the bench) to tell the Libel Triad Judge that the dogs were notoriously unreliable; and that the book contains "facts" that are untrue.

Priceless ! You got to wonder at Gerry's definition of "facts".

He opened his mouth only to insert his smelly foot into it; and unfortunately for him the Judge wasn't interested to hear his delusions.

by aiyoyo 02.12.14 10:28

PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her, drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears. Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place. It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY. Was Murat amongst one of those 7 ~~suspects~~ ermm witnesses?

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?
'Did you help in the disposal'?

by Guest 02.12.14 10:46

[quote="Ladyinred"]Is it a libel trial? I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM. Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time. Thanks.[/quote]

LIR, you understand correctly

by NickE 02.12.14 12:03

Damages trial;Amaral Vs. McCann Lisbon
Provisional date: Wednesday 10 December 2014 at 9h30am

by sallypelt 02.12.14 12:20

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her, drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears. Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place. It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY. Was Murat amongst one of those 7 ~~suspects~~ ermm witnesses?

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?
'Did you help in the disposal'?

I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.

by aiyoyo 02.12.14 12:41

sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her, drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears. Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place. It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY. Was Murat amongst one of those 7 ~~suspects~~ ermm witnesses?

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?
'Did you help in the disposal'?
I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.

If I am not wrong, the article states that seven of them were originally planned to be interviewed as "suspects" (SY's original request perhaps given to the new prosecutor for perusal hence the postponement, relevant notification to interviewees etc), but the new prosecutor saw fit to change that (subject to SY concurrence or not as the case may be since SY has no say in that, being the purview of the Prosecutor to grant or object to the terms/conditions of ILOR) and opted for them to be interviewed as 'witnesses' first - then play it by the ears...on necessity basis.....if it comes to that, the status can be changed to allow them the privilege of 'arguido' status ie their right to lawyer, their right not to answer question that can incriminate them etc....

That still leaves my question open, why had SY requested for them to be interviewed as "suspects" (assuming this presumption to be correct, hence the change taken by the Judge) What evidence does SY have that calls for that is anyone guess.

by sallypelt 02.12.14 12:51

aiyoyo wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her, drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears. Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place. It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY. Was Murat amongst one of those 7 ~~suspects~~ ermm witnesses?

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?
'Did you help in the disposal'?
I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.

If I am not wrong, the article states that seven of them were originally planned to be interviewed as "suspects" (SY's original request perhaps, hence the postponement), but new prosecutor saw fit to have it changed and opted for them to be interviewed as 'witnesses' first - then play it by the ears...on necessity basis.....if it comes to that, the status can be changed to allow them the privilege of 'arguido' status ie their right to lawyer, their right not to answer question that can incriminate them etc....

That still leaves my question open, why had SY requested for them to be interviewed as "suspects" (assuming that presumption to be correct, hence the change taken by the Judge) What evidence does SY have that calls for that is anyone guess.

I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

by **Tony Bennett** 02.12.14 12:53

Portia wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Is it a libel trial? I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM. Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time. Thanks.

LIR, you understand correctly

With due respect, Portia, that's not quite right.

Some, including IIRC Textusa, have made a big song-and-dance saying it's NOT a libel trial, but it's a damages trial, and that we shouldn't call it a libel trial but a damages trial.

Again, with all due respect, this is complete nonsense - and it is wholly wrong to draw an artificial distinction between a libel trial and a damages trial.

The legal situation in the trial of McCanns v. Amaral is no different from any comparable libel trial in the U.K.

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all.

The Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and the Supreme Court (March 2011) ruled that, pending the final libel trial, it was reasonable to allow Goncalo Amaral's book to be sold once again. I think the Court of Appeal judgment is available to read on CMOMM in English; if not, it is certainly available elsewhere on the net.

When it makes its final decision, the Lisbon Court will have to pay special attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the so-called 'Free Speech' article.

In terms, this says that we all in Europe have the legal right to free speech, EXCEPT in limited circumstances such as, e.g. speech inciting hate or violence, or - relevant in this case - harming the reputation of others.

At the heart of this case will be whether Goncalo Amaral has told the truth, or whether he was reasonable to publish his opinion of what was the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

First base is for the McCanns to establish that they have been libelled - that their reputation has been damaged. If they fail to establish this, then they have lost, and can expect a big costs bill from the courts and from Goncalo Amaral and his lawyers.

IF they succeed in establishing this, THEN and ONLY THEN can the court look at how much damages should be paid to the McCanns.

Also, Ladyinred suggests that any damages would be "because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM".

REPLY: No, it is much wider than that. Look at the libel writ. It basically asks for damages because of the ruinous effect on their health - Amaral's alleged libels are claimed to have caused them all manner of dreadful things...permanent emotional distress, indefinable fear, insomnia, anxiety etc. etc.

And IF the judge gets to that point, she will no doubt have to consider any medical evidence about the harm done to the McCanns' health (the Court doesn't seem to have received any) and - if they have been harmed - how much is due to the mystery abductor and how much is due to Goncalo Amaral's book.

Another issue to be decided is whether the McCanns can make a claim on behalf of Madeleine, which forms part of their claim for damages as set out in their libel writ, back in June 2009. That doesn't look terribly likely after the Court obtained particulars of the 2007 Wardship proceedings from the High Court last year

by aiyoyo 02.12.14 13:03

sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other - but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.

What evidence led them to that......?
Where is Redwood's onion core (home or away)...that is what I would like to know.