McCanns 'no show

Surely that would be seen as obstructive?

noddy100 wrote:Surely that would be seen as obstructive?

The mccanns and tapas + others have been obstructing since 2007,and they still are allowed to get away with it.

By Numbers wrote:

tiny wrote:From the MCF.


He added that the investigation deviated from any objectivity and that the British police, Martin Grime and Mark Harrison realised this and feared that the McCanns were going to be subject to an impulsive, unfounded making of arguidos.

He also recalled that Stuart Prior was "very worried" when he met with the PJ on the fourth of september, just days before the McCanns were made arguidos. And that he was worried because he knew it was wrong to accuse them of anything because there was no evidence and the DNA reports were being misread, for the PJ's convenience.


Whats all this about,i know the mccanns and call me stu were very friendly,but Martin Grime and Mark Harrison had concerns too?

I suspect this is a lie. A factor that appears to have worked well is the suggestion that the Portuguese are persecuting the McCanns, and it seems to stop people in the UK asking as many questions. Mark Harrison and Martin Grime create doubts over whether this is a miscarriage of justice based on nationality, and both of their findings give credibility to the McCanns' involvement in their daughter's disappearance and likely death. 

Perhaps Gerry McCann can clear up what he discussed with Martin Grime's boss, when he went to visit him, as he appears to have forgotten to mention this meeting to anyone at all. It was probably just a chat about how worried Martin was that his unbelievably reliable dogs might play a part in the PJ's nefarious scheme to frame the fragrant parents.

What at a load of bullshit from their lawyer.
You'd think a competent lawyer would have asked their clients to supply document-proof to support their case if they are to fight the clients corner, and not simply based their closing argument from clients' say so.  

For a starter, it's common knowledge that communications between crime agencies and investigators are confidential, never divulged to outside party, will never be divulged to the Mcs especially when they became the 'focus' of investigation suspected of involvement in the crime.  

Even an idiot would know something as basic as that. That begs the question why Mcs lawyer believed the Mcs would be given that kind of info, as in who could have given it to them?
 Did he not think of asking the McCanns how they got the impression/belief that MH and MG as well as the Leicestershire Police were against the PJ arguidoing them?

It's incredulous that any lawyer would go to Court and repeat hearsay from clients, without thinking of supplying proof to support his argument.  If document proof exists, then that speaks for itself and all he'd to do is to refer Court to the relevant document.  Without the relevant document to back up his verbal argument, it amounts to nothing more than supposition.  His say so, a product of hearsay he got his clients, is of no value to Court.
 
If it was required of him to deliver those craps by his clients, it's a no wonder ID did not attend. She'd left it to that poor gullible chap to do the dirty job for the Mcs, and possibly to take the rap for failure. 

Either she has not been paid, or she did not rate her chance of success with the Mcs case.
Her no show suggests she preferred to give priority to something else. A clear sign the Mcs case is no longer her priority, else you'd think she could have prioritized / got organised appropriately in order of importance, after all Court date is notified well in advance.   

It would be interesting to know who Izzy's other clients are as it may provide some explanation of why she chose to prioritise her appearance in another court on their behalf over that of the McCanns' case in which she was expected to give the speech of her life closing arguments, aiyoyo.

However, Anne Guedes' report of last Wednesday's proceedings suggests 'written allegations' may be submitted to the Court and, if this should be the case, it may be some considerable time before Izzy's words are made known to us.

ultimaThule wrote:It would be interesting to know who Izzy's other clients are as it may provide some explanation of why she chose to prioritise her appearance in another court on their behalf over that of the McCanns' case in which she was expected to give the speech of her life closing arguments, aiyoyo.

However, Anne Guedes' report of last Wednesday's proceedings suggests 'written allegations' may be submitted to the Court and, if this should be the case, it may be some considerable time before Izzy's words are made known to us.

Forgive my ignorance on this but even if a report in writing is submitted to the court wouldn't it have to be read out in the court?

aquila wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:It would be interesting to know who Izzy's other clients are as it may provide some explanation of why she chose to prioritise her appearance in another court on their behalf over that of the McCanns' case in which she was expected to give the speech of her life closing arguments, aiyoyo.

However, Anne Guedes' report of last Wednesday's proceedings suggests 'written allegations' may be submitted to the Court and, if this should be the case, it may be some considerable time before Izzy's words are made known to us.

Forgive my ignorance on this but even if a report in writing is submitted to the court wouldn't it have to be read out in the court?

Nope

aquila wrote:Forgive my ignorance on this but even if a report in writing is submitted to the court wouldn't it have to be read out in the court?

If I understood correctly, 21st Jan is reserved for the reading out of facts by the Judge.
 
One would suppose that since ID represents the McCanns, and Ricardo something (can't recall his surname) is representative for the jr Mccanns, then ID would and should have submitted a written closing argument for K&G seeing that her clients are different from those of Ricardo's.

it does not matter whether she had submitted or not, as that has no relevance to why she did not attend one of the most (if not the most) important sessions.  All I'm saying is had she really wanted to attend she would have prioritised her schedule accordingly to suit her purpose, unless she found herself in circumstance of no choice of option.

What interests me more is why this Ricardo kept low profile until now?
  Is he from same law firm as ID?  Is he deputy of ID? Or is he from a separate law firm?  
Why was he not heard of before the last session, where was his voice for the jr Mccanns in prior sessions ?

I dont understand how it can be legally feasible for him to represent only the children when these children are underaged that their suit had to be taken out on their behalf by their parents.  
Would that not mean he was representing the parents (albeit on behalf of the children)?
  I just don't get this 2 separate lawyers for the sr and jr thing?  

This 2 different lawyers thing is fascinating --  would they both have shared common points in their closing arguments, or would they be different one from the other?  They would have to be working together and corroborated to some extent to have their submissions synched to one version for the clients to afford it credence.  Unless Ricardo is IDs deputy, breathing from same nose, then it does not matter who delivers the final argument so long clients approved of it.

The other thing I dont get is this - after Defence side had been tasked by the Court to secure the WOC documentation and this was gotten hold of after a considerable fortune and lenghty time spent to obtain it, and filed with Court, why despite this is the ball now thrown into the McCanns Court, requiring them to supply the woc document showing they have authority to represent Madeleine?  Does it mean the documentation secured by Defence side and supplied to Court not suitable for purpose?  
I dont understand the logic of asking both sides to secure one document for same purpose?  

This WOC thing is an enigma.  I can only hazard a guess that the Defence side was not given what they sought for per se, but some sort of document to support Madeleine had been made WOC, and so now it is down to McCanns to secure it if Madeleine's name is to be remained as plaintiff.

Perhaps all the Defense had to do was secure the WOC document which stated that Madeleine had been made a Ward of Court, and the date that it happened. Perhaps that was done, and given to the Portuguese judge. Perhaps the judge then determined that it was up to the Plaintiffs to now prove, in light of the WOC document being presented, that they had the authority to sue the Defendant on behalf of Madeleine, since Madeline was not, in fact, in their custody, but in the custody of the court. Perhaps the Plaintiffs have been unable to provide this proof, hence requests for delays and possibly even the Plaintiff's lawyer absenting herself from the process.

That's what I think has happened.
Opinion only.

canada12 wrote:Perhaps all the Defense had to do was secure the WOC document which stated that Madeleine had been made a Ward of Court, and the date that it happened. Perhaps that was done, and given to the Portuguese judge. Perhaps the judge then determined that it was up to the Plaintiffs to now prove, in light of the WOC document being presented, that they had the authority to sue the Defendant on behalf of Madeleine, since Madeline was not, in fact, in their custody, but in the custody of the court. Perhaps the Plaintiffs have been unable to provide this proof, hence requests for delays and possibly even the Plaintiff's lawyer absenting herself from the process.

That's what I think has happened.
Opinion only.

It does not make sense.  Think about it.

In that case, a copy of document in the public domain, which incidentally is available on the Pamalan's site or Nigel's site would suffice for the purpose, if the objective is to show proof she was WOC, and not that the McCanns had ceded total custodian to the Court and therefore would need authorisation to act for her. 

 Why would Defence waste money and time seeking a vague document without the sort of details needed to show the Mcs have no power over her welfare.  Isn't the whole point of raising this WOC issue to invalidate of validate Madeleine's name as plaintiff?

Also, if proof of WOC is all that is needed without the need to show details and restrictions, why did the court not, in the first place, simply ask the Plaintiffs' lawyers if MBM was WOC, and if so, did her parents have authority to represent her, then depending on their answer, decide whether the Mcs need to be tasked to secure the authorisation.

Something does not gel about said documentation Defence obtained and filed with Court.
  I tend to the belief it was scan of details and insufficient for purpose, that's why the Mcs had to be asked to secure it.  Had the Defence been given a definitive document that is fit for purpose, there would be no need to require the Mcs to obtain a piece of paper meant to meet the same end.  

Only if the Defence obtained document was insufficient for purpose then it makes sense to ask Mcs to obtain proof of authorisation.  That then raise the question, had the defence been unable to get UK Court to provide them the right type of documentation they needed for purpose?  What was given to them that is so inadequate that Court had to ask Mcs to obtain what was denied to the Defence?

I'd never come across Court asking both sides to secure a piece of document that is meant to meet same end.

canada12 wrote:Perhaps all the Defense had to do was secure the WOC document which stated that Madeleine had been made a Ward of Court, and the date that it happened. Perhaps that was done, and given to the Portuguese judge. Perhaps the judge then determined that it was up to the Plaintiffs to now prove, in light of the WOC document being presented, that they had the authority to sue the Defendant on behalf of Madeleine, since Madeline was not, in fact, in their custody, but in the custody of the court. Perhaps the Plaintiffs have been unable to provide this proof, hence requests for delays and possibly even the Plaintiff's lawyer absenting herself from the process.

That's what I think has happened.
Opinion only.

my opinion as well

aiyoyo wrote:

canada12 wrote:Perhaps all the Defense had to do was secure the WOC document which stated that Madeleine had been made a Ward of Court, and the date that it happened. Perhaps that was done, and given to the Portuguese judge. Perhaps the judge then determined that it was up to the Plaintiffs to now prove, in light of the WOC document being presented, that they had the authority to sue the Defendant on behalf of Madeleine, since Madeline was not, in fact, in their custody, but in the custody of the court. Perhaps the Plaintiffs have been unable to provide this proof, hence requests for delays and possibly even the Plaintiff's lawyer absenting herself from the process.

That's what I think has happened.
Opinion only.

It does not make sense.  Think about it.

In that case, a copy of document in the public domain, which incidentally is available on the Pamalan's site or Nigel's site would suffice for the purpose, if the objective is to show proof she was WOC, and not that the McCanns had ceded total custodian to the Court and therefore would need authorisation to act for her. 

 Why would Defence waste money and time seeking a vague document without the sort of details needed to show the Mcs have no power over her welfare.  Isn't the whole point of raising this WOC issue to invalidate of validate Madeleine's name as plaintiff?

Also, if proof of WOC is all that is needed without the need to show details and restrictions, why did the court not, in the first place, simply ask the Plaintiffs' lawyers if MBM was WOC, and if so, did her parents have authority to represent her, then depending on their answer, decide whether the Mcs need to be tasked to secure the authorisation.

Something does not gel about said documentation Defence obtained and filed with Court.
  I tend to the belief it was scan of details and insufficient for purpose, that's why the Mcs had to be asked to secure it.  Had the Defence been given a definitive document that is fit for purpose, there would be no need to require the Mcs to obtain a piece of paper meant to meet the same end.  

Only if the Defence obtained document was insufficient for purpose then it makes sense to ask Mcs to obtain proof of authorisation.  That then raise the question, had the defence been unable to get UK Court to provide them the right type of documentation they needed for purpose?  What was given to them that is so inadequate that Court had to ask Mcs to obtain what was denied to the Defence?

I'd never come across Court asking both sides to secure a piece of document that is meant to meet same end.

The documents relating to the Wardship which were submitted by the defence resulted in the judge ruling that without authorisation from the High Court in London the McCanns did not have the capacity to represent Madeleine when they filed a claim on her behalf in the Lisbon courts back in 2009.  

The judge further decreed that after the final court session the McCanns would have 30 days to obtain and submit the necessary document(s) of authorisation from the High Court's records, otherwise that part of their claim which pertains to their eldest daughter will fail.

As I recall, Dr Amaral described obtaining the documents pertaining to the Wardship as being a lengthy and expensive process, aiyoyo, and it's probable this involved paying for the services of a Portuguese speaking UK lawyer to make the necessary application(s) and for each and every document to be translated from English to Portuguese by an accredited translator and properly attested to satisfy the court as to its authenticity.

@UT
How does your reply address any of my points?


p.s.  And, please do you mind not bolding my name?  I'm just a nobody that needs no highlighting.

As the documents pertaining to the Wardship obtained by the defence and submitted to the court were sufficient for the judge to rule that the onus is on the McCanns to prove that they had the necessary capacity, by way of an Order or other document of authorisation from the High Court in London, to bring an action on behalf of the Ward in the courts of Lisbon at the time they filed their claim against the defendants, it seems to me your points are redundant,  

However, if you so wish I'll attempt to address them individually so as not to cause any further confusion with regard to the issue of Wardship which, in itself, is a concept largely unknown to non-English speaking nations and further complicated by the fact that proceedings in the UK's family courts are rarely made public.

For the record, although the fact that Madeleine became a Ward of Court was reported by the UK's MSM almost a year after the McCanns' made application, the precise terms of the Wardship were not made public and any person or agency who is not party to the proceedings has no automatic right of sight of, or access to, the Court's order(s) in respect of a minor.      

With regard to bolding the names of those whose posts I am responding to, to my mind it serves the purpose of drawing their attention to my replies when threads have moved on before I have opportunity to comment and singling them out, for want of a better term, in this manner also serves as something of a courtesy which has now become force of habit

Fwiw, I do not believe that in the grand scheme of things anyone should regard themselves as being 'just a nobody' and to me, at least, you'll always be a 'someone' whose posts I look forward to reading. aiyoyo.

Maddie, Ward of Court

A puzzling matter

Who requested this;

When?

Why?


Was a inquest held to look into the facts of the matter?

Were records kept?

Why does it take a year to come up with the relevant information sought by the Court in Lisbon?

It hasn't "taken a year to come up with the relevant information sought by the Court in Lisbon ", Portia.

If you recall, the defence raised the matter of the Wardship back in January of this year and, after consideration of the documents which the defence submitted to the court, the judge ruled in June that the McCanns would be given 30 days after the final session of the Hearing to produce their authorisation from the High Court to act for Madeleine.  

At that time the final session was expected to take place cOctober/November.  As it took the defence some months to obtain the documents subsequently submitted to the Court it would seem that, in allowing the McCanns an additional 30 days after the final session, the judge has endeavoured to be even-handed by giving them a similar amount of time to that taken by the defence in obtaining the documents.  

Although they have been given 30 days after the Hearing is complete, as party to the proceedings in any applications made to the High Court in London in relation to the Wardship, the McCanns/their UK solicitors will be in possession of all related documentation and are unlikely to experience any delay in having the relevant Orders translated into Portuguese. properly attested, and submitted to the Lisbon court together with the originals.  

As the McCanns are no doubt keen to learn the outcome of their long running suit against the defendants, I would expect Izzy to submit the documents the judge has asked for on or before the final session and, more especially, as that portion of the claim which relates to the harms caused to Madeleine, which will be struck out if the McCanns are unable to demonstrate their capacity to act for her, amounts to some £430,000.  



 .

Thank you UT!

Yes, one would expect them to be really eager to get this lawsuit over & done with asap

And I sure would hate to see an appeal from the outcome, if that is correct and just, in order to inflict even more damage and pain on dr. Amaral

Why the sum of £430,000 for MBM?  Is there a precedent for this type of legal action and the huge amounts of money involved?  Sorry for the questions, but I don't fully understand this.  The McCanns admitted they left their children alone in an apartment in a foreign country seven+ years ago.  A consequence of their negligent behaviour is that she was abducted (they claim) and hasn't been seen since.  Amaral wrote a book offering his own opinion and disagreeing with their version of events and now they are demanding £1m in damages from him.  Insane.
Greedy, selfish, unscrupulous, attention-seeking sociopaths.  Unbelievable that they are still walking our streets. Poor little Madeleine.
IMO.

As I've said elsewhere, should the judge find against the McCanns I have no doubt they, or the 'family source', will announce their intention to appeal, Portia, but Izzy's claim that she would be appealing the verdict of the Supreme Court of Portugal in respect of the injunction to the European courts turned out to be nothing more than hot air.  

If they lose, the McCanns are best advised to put their overpaid army of spinmerchants to work on turning defeat into victory by depicting the courageous pair as having championed the cause of greedy parents abducted children everywhere, only to have their rightful claim for justice rejected by the sardine-munching Portuguese courts.  

I'll ask again, how CAN a 'missing' person, even 'file' a 'writ'?

Unless, of course, the 'claimants' actually know, KNOW, the included 'missing' person, on the 'writ', is, in fact, NOT 'missing' at all but 'squirreled' away 'somewhere' SAFE AND SOUND, TOTALLY 'UNHARMED'.

To be er, umm, suddenly 'discovered, REVEALED', after a possible favourable 'outcome' from a court 'case'.

That would be possible 'fraud' but, hey ho, give it a 'go'!

jeanmonroe wrote:I'll ask again, how CAN a 'missing' person, even 'file' a 'writ'?

Unless, of course, the 'claimants' actually know, KNOW, the included 'missing' person, on the 'writ', is, in fact, NOT 'missing' at all  but 'squirreled' away 'somewhere' SAFE AND SOUND, TOTALLY 'UNHARMED'.

To be er, umm, suddenly 'discovered, REVEALED', after a possible favourable 'outcome' from a court 'case'.

That would be possible 'fraud' but, hey ho, give it a 'go'!

Are you suggesting that Madeleine could possibly still be alive, then? What about the cadaver sniffer dogs findings?

j.rob wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:I'll ask again, how CAN a 'missing' person, even 'file' a 'writ'?

Unless, of course, the 'claimants' actually know, KNOW, the included 'missing' person, on the 'writ', is, in fact, NOT 'missing' at all  but 'squirreled' away 'somewhere' SAFE AND SOUND, TOTALLY 'UNHARMED'.

To be er, umm, suddenly 'discovered, REVEALED', after a possible favourable 'outcome' from a court 'case'.

That would be possible 'fraud' but, hey ho, give it a 'go'!

Are you suggesting that Madeleine could possibly still be alive, then? What about the cadaver sniffer dogs findings?

Unfortunately j.rob, if you ask any of the McCanns legal team, they will confidently tell you that the dogs quite rightly identified cadaver, but can not tell who the cadaver is from, therefore it cannot be used in court, it can only be used to assist the investigation.

Based on that, the McCanns can continue to say that the cadaver is not Madeleine, she is still alive and missing and continue cashing in, regardless of the fact that they have been informed that she is most likely deceased by almost everyone, right from the start (e.g when they issued the photo of her eye to the media!)

jeanmonroe wrote:I'll ask again, how CAN a 'missing' person, even 'file' a 'writ'?

Unless, of course, the 'claimants' actually know, KNOW, the included 'missing' person, on the 'writ', is, in fact, NOT 'missing' at all  but 'squirreled' away 'somewhere' SAFE AND SOUND, TOTALLY 'UNHARMED'.

To be er, umm, suddenly 'discovered, REVEALED', after a possible favourable 'outcome' from a court 'case'.

That would be possible 'fraud' but, hey ho, give it a 'go'!

A 'missing person' cannot file a writ without revealing their whereabouts, but a parent/wife/daughter etc of a 'missing person' can, in certain circumstances, take action on their behalf.

In this instance, the McCanns are claiming £430,000 for harm done to the search for their eldest daughter who, they allege, was abducted from an unlocked apartment in Praia de Luz on the evening of 3 May 2007.  

If they succeed in law and the child or her body is found at a later date I would expect them to maintain that, had it not been for publication of the book/documentary/dvd etc, she or her remains would have been found earlier.   In any event, the claim cannot be said to be fraudulent unless it can be proved that the claimants were complicit in her disappearance/demise.  

However, the big question is whether or not the McCanns will be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Lisbon courts that they have the necessary capacity to bring an action on behalf of their eldest daughter?

Given that they were unable to make good on their Portuguese solicitor's assertion that they would be made assistentes in respect of the PJ's re-opened invrestigation, it seems to me it is entirely possible that Dr Amaral's ace may trump their claim for harm(s) done to Madeleine.

ultimaThule wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:I'll ask again, how CAN a 'missing' person, even 'file' a 'writ'?

Unless, of course, the 'claimants' actually know, KNOW, the included 'missing' person, on the 'writ', is, in fact, NOT 'missing' at all  but 'squirreled' away 'somewhere' SAFE AND SOUND, TOTALLY 'UNHARMED'.

To be er, umm, suddenly 'discovered, REVEALED', after a possible favourable 'outcome' from a court 'case'.

That would be possible 'fraud' but, hey ho, give it a 'go'!

A 'missing person' cannot file a writ without revealing their whereabouts, but a parent/wife/daughter etc of a 'missing person' can, in certain circumstances, take action on their behalf.

In this instance, the McCanns are claiming £430,000 for harm done to the search for their eldest daughter who, they allege, was abducted from an unlocked apartment in Praia de Luz on the evening of 3 May 2007.  

If they succeed in law and the child or her body is found at a later date I would expect them to maintain that, had it not been for publication of the book/documentary/dvd etc, she or her remains would have been found earlier.   In any event, the claim cannot be said to be fraudulent unless it can be proved that the claimants were complicit in her disappearance/demise.  

However, the big question is whether or not the McCanns will be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Lisbon courts that they have the necessary capacity to bring an action on behalf of their eldest daughter?

Given that they were unable to make good on their Portuguese solicitor's assertion that they would be made assistentes in respect of the PJ's re-opened invrestigation, it seems to me it is entirely possible that Dr Amaral's ace may trump their claim for harm(s) done to Madeleine.

Thank you ultimaThule, I'd forgotten about the assistentes status.

UT: wrote

In any event, the claim cannot be said to be fraudulent unless it can be proved that the claimants were complicit in her disappearance/demise.
------------------------------------------------------

I 'think' that was what i meant! (Who knows? }

However have the 'claimants', you know who, proven, beyond legal 'doubt' that they were not, are not, complicit/involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

The Leicestershire Police assistant chief constable certainly did NOT think so, and said so in a court room!

And instead of 'challenging' his 'comment' the McCann's made a 'tactical retreat'!

p. 316 (madeleine)

In his statement to the Court, the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police wrote: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance”. Dr Kate: “We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us?…that line stuck in our heads as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.” Dr McCann said they made ‘a tactical retreat’ to ‘accept a smaller amount of information’: “Having to withdraw was quite galling…”

Completely 'staggered'?

Should have gone 'mental' in the court room then and 'challenged' the ACC 'statement', shouldn't they?

BUT THEY DIDN'T!

They, instead, made a 'tactical retreat'

Because, they CANNOT 'prove', beyond 'DOUBT', they are not/were not 'complicit/involved' in their daughter's 'disappearance'

Can they?

Just them and the 'friends' 'SAYING SO' just dosen't count, legally, does it?

Here's two questions that the 'shills' always 'avoid' and have NEVER 'answered'

1) Is it POSSIBLE the McCann's AND/OR their 'friends' WERE/ARE 'involved' in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

2) Why is it IMPOSSIBLE that the McCann's AND/OR their 'friends' WERE NOT/ARE NOT 'involved' in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

Incidentally, imo, DCI Wall should gather her OG 'team' next week and ask them, first thing, one at a time, the above two questions.

But, that's just 'my opinion' on what she should 'do'.

As I recall, in this particular instance a Mctactical retreat consisted of the nouveau riche globetrotting parents, this time with twins in tow, jetting off to Auntie Norah and the wilds of British Columbia while their stooges lawyers were left to put the best possible spin on their blatant attempt to use the provisions of Wardship in a manner never heard of before or since, jeanm.

Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that the litigious pair didn't sue the ACC for failing to have been impressed by the sight of them at their 'most grief stricken' and I, for one, will never forget the images of the McCanns which were beamed into my living room in the days immediately following the disappearance of their eldest daughter.

Latest from Blacksmith

Snipped:

The coming clunk! of the verdict is a formality. But it will still change everything.

A formality?  BS seems confident.  That said, he likes to talk in riddles most times using bombastic texts to leave punters guessing...so his unpredictable style......so, maybe like us he's just guessing on this one, but with his fingers firmly crossed he gets it right.

Oh dear, is tsunami heading for Rothley in March?

I dont get it why everything would change for the Mcs in a defeat?
  Their smelly reputation won't recover...it will remain status quo.....won't change an iota, an inch.  

The media will regurgitate unpleasant to them news, which they will moan and groan and spin.....nothing will change in that aspect...

Expect them to spin madly in Spring.

aiyoyo wrote:

The coming clunk! of the verdict is a formality. But it will still change everything.

A formality?  BS seems confident.  

Oh dear, tsunami heading for Rothley in March.

I dont get it why everything would change for the Mcs when the defeat was in the writings.  Their smelly reputation won't recover...it will remain status quo.....not changed an iota, an inch.  

The media will regurgitate unpleasant to them news, which they will moan and groan and spin.....nothing will change here....

Expect them to spin madly in Spring.

Believing in what this Blacksmith 'bureau' has to say is like believing you'll win the lottery....he even mentions gambling...the mad old bugger.

When I read Blacksmith's various personae, I feel as though I'm reading Cosmopolitan Magazine that encourages me to be female and independent but tells me how to wear make-up, get my face botoxed and filled to attract a man.

In other words, I find the Blacksmith bureau a pile of poop.

Run with hare and hunt with the hound. That's about my summation of this spouting.

aquila wrote:Believing in what this Blacksmith 'bureau' has to say is like believing you'll win the lottery....he even mentions gambling...the mad old bugger.

When I read Blacksmith's various personae, I feel as though I'm reading Cosmopolitan Magazine that encourages me to be female and independent but tells me how to wear make-up, get my face botoxed and filled to attract a man.

In other words, I find the Blacksmith bureau a pile of poop.

Run with hare and hunt with the hound. That's about my summation of this spouting.

Yes, he's notoriously unreliable, and he's obnoxious too.

I'm not keen on his show-off overdramatic style, but I am not close-minded either.

He may be reading from tea leaves.......but the proof is in the pudding....

Who knows, with luck he may hit 777.....only time will tell !

aiyoyo wrote:

The coming clunk! of the verdict is a formality. But it will still change everything.

A formality?  BS seems confident.  That said, he likes to talk in riddles most times using bombastic texts to leave punters guessing...so his unpredictable style......so, maybe like us he's just guessing on this one, but with his fingers firmly crossed he gets it right.

Oh dear, is tsunami heading for Rothley in March?

I dont get it why everything would change for the Mcs in a defeat?
  Their smelly reputation won't recover...it will remain status quo.....won't change an iota, an inch.  

The media will regurgitate unpleasant to them news, which they will moan and groan and spin.....nothing will change in that aspect...

Expect them to spin madly in Spring.

Like nearly everyone else here I distrust the BS from BS. But on the other hand he does get some essentials right and one is that if they lose the libel trial everything changes.

For one thing, it means that it becomes much more likely that GA can get his book published in the UK, or at least in English and available on the internet. I believe that is what this trial has been all about - preventing an English language version getting widespread publicity.

For another, as in politics, so in PR, "momentum" is very important. The libel trial has effectively stopped the Amaral momentum for several years. To lose the trial will just give him a lot of momentum.