A 'must' read......imo.

Thx Anne & Pam

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


Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 13 – Final claimant speech10 December 2014

HOMEPAGE ANNE GUEDES PHOTOGRAPHS
This report was written and authorised by Anne Guedes to be hosted by Pamalam

Original Source: Anne Guedes

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 13 – Final claimant speech

The hearing as it happened

(10.12.2014, 10 am)

All lawyers are present, except for Dra Isabel Duarte, substituted (no reason given) by her assistant, who therefore occupies her chair. Each lawyer will stand up while speaking (whereas up to this hearing they always remained sitting when speaking).

The judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro opens the session alluding to the 30 days that are granted to the plaintiffs to obtain from the High Court the authorisation to legally represent, in this trial, their missing daughter. After this time, the lawyers (all requested it) will have 10 days to hand written alegações de direito (allegations concerning points of law and their interpretation) over to the court (whereas the matter of fact concerns what happened and how it happened, the matter of law comes under the conformity to law and justice).

The McCann lawyer, Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso, shows first a copy of Gonçalo Amaral's book, says it is the 4th edition and he bought it recently, hence it is findable. He starts reading a list of numerous points with a rather monotonous voice and at top speed, only sometimes using an ironic intonation.


– RCA refers to the Correio da Manhã interview (with title on the first page)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
where Gonçalo Amaral, last June, repeats that the parents were guilty and mentions a cremation story.

– RCA speaks of bookshops selling GA's book and compares prices. He states how much money GA made with his book : over 342 thousand euros and over 22 thousand euros of foreign copy rights, etc. (no Brazilian specific edition).


– RCA then speaks of the DVD's price (6,95 €). GA made over 37.000 € with the DVD and got 10% of the 330 thousand paid by TVI to VC filmes. VC filmes and VC multimedia ceded the documentary only to Portugal and PALOP countries.

He mentions a site where the DVD could be bought but that doesn't exist any more.

– About the number of people who watched the documentary, RCA says that the audience was the biggest ever for Portuguese TV : over 2.200.000 spectators, 61,8% dos Portuguese who watch TV. He refers to the Group Marktest study about this.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
159728e1d013ad0320f746537bf/+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=pt&client=firefox-a


– RCA summarises briefly what the MC's witnesses have stated before the Court, from Emma Loach to Trish Cameron.

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

– Concerning the 75 thousand DVDs sold, RCA observes that the destruction of the remaining copies needs to be clarified. He notes contradictions between numbers and finally concludes that 745 copies are missing. Where are they ?


– RCA qualifies GA's activity as "criminal mischief" since the judicial secrecy had to be respected, as required by the PGR, up to the first half of August (2008).

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

– RCA alludes chronologically to 15 news articles (some of them in Spanish), after the book was published, accusing the McCanns of concealing the body or suggesting that the child had died in the bedroom or wondering whether she's alive, etc. He observes that those national and international articles on the alleged death of the child increased the sales of the book. He refers also to various authorities to demonstrate that the book and the documentary were essential elements to convince people that the child had died. He quotes page 221 of A verdade da mentira :

Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto ;

There was a simulation of abduction.

Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvimento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha ;

Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body.

A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trágico acidente ;

Death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident.

– RCA mentions the report that the inspector Tavares de Almeida sent to GA on the 10.09.2007, and its implications : if the child is dead, finding her ceases being an emergency. Comparing this report with the book he finds differences.

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

– He describes GA as pretending to be magnanimous, knowledgeable and punitive and qualifies his conclusions as "primary". In the perspective of a semantical and graphical analysis of the book, the cover, for instance, was conceived to suggest a police file. RCA observes that there is no discrimination between reality and fiction.


– RCA points to the beginning of the DVD : I will prove...

O meu nome is Gonçalo Amaral, fui investigador da Polícia Judiciária durante 27 anos. Coordenei a investigação do desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann no 3 de Maio de 2007. Nas próximas 50 minutes, vou provar que a criança não foi raptada e que morreu no apartamento de ferias na Praia da Luz.

My name is Gonçalo Amaral, I've been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária during 27 years, I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child wasn't abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

– To illustrate the argument that the book tends to rely on lies to deceive the reader, RCA mentions GA referring to Carnival day (in 2008 on the 5th of February) as being a Sunday (when it's always on Tuesday). Though the legal hunt period was then finished, GA writes he can hear hare hunters.


– RCA qualifies GA's wish to defend his good name as a kind of poetical surge. In contrast and though the McCann couple were cleared, GA produces judgements of value like calling Madeleine's Fund


que atingiu mais de 2 milhões de libras, um crime de burla ou abuso de confiança.
that had reached over 2 millions pounds, a fraud or a breach of trust.

Or, speaking of the home country of the MC,

Para mim a investigação estava morta desde 2 de Outubro de 2007, quando parecia ter vingado um novo ultimatum inglês no próprio dia em que se discutia o Tratado de Lisboa..

For me the investigation was dead from the 2nd of October 2007, when a new English ultimatum seemed to have won out on the precise day the Lisbon Treaty was discussed..


– RCA argues that GA dropped the elements that could cast doubt on his thesis, destroying the processual evidence and fuelling the uncertainties about what happened on that night. GA always said, in order to stimulate the expectancies, that he detained much more evidence than what had been made public.

– RCA underlines that the highest authorities of the PJ, like Alípio Ribeiro, talked of precipitation concerning the statute of arguido (formal suspect).

– RCA refers to the doubts related to the Jane Tanner statements..


Estas (Jane's declarações) não batem certo. Qual a necessidade de o eventual raptor ter caminhado para a zona mais aberta, apesar de não existir luminosidade suficiente que permitisse a Jane Tanner aperceber-se de tantos pormenores?

These (Jane's statements) don't match. Why should the eventual abductor (in a planned abduction) have walked toward a more open area, whereas there was no sufficient luminosity to allow JT to note so many details (on the pyjamas).
.. though, he notes, GA insists on the importance of the first statement


São essas primeiras declarações que passam, quase sempre, a ser as mais importantes, por serem contemporâneas ao acontecimento.

The first statements almost always appear to be the most important, because they're contemporaneous to the event.

– RCA observes that vague and inconsistent sentences end up making it complicated for the reader to make their own analysis and notes a difference between Jane's statements and the way that they are reported by GA (for instance 'Tanner' carrier's hair), a police authority. He recalls that truncation can be used for manipulation purpose.


– Considering the Smith family episode, RCA observes that GA describes their route in a condensed manner and, in spite of the similarity between the 'S' carrier and the 'Tanner' one, in equivalent conditions of street lighting, isn't capable to compare the first to the second, whom he depreciates and considers inconsistent. The presence of this family of 9 refutes GA's argument that streets were deserted.

– In the perspective of the demonisation by GA of the McCann couple, RCA compares the MS statement to the way it is reported in the book. In the book MS recognized (in the statement he thought it could be the same man) the carrier he saw when watching on TV Gerald McCann getting out of the plane carrying his little son in September 2007. GA insists on the same uncomfortable way to carry the child, whereas anyone can see on the photograph that the father is very much at ease doing this. It is very likely that MS was influenced by what he saw on TV, since this plane episode happened two days after the McCanns were made arguidos. RCA underlines that the rest of the family didn't confirm the impression of MS. Facts are omitted in order to amplify the negative effects.

– The sketch of the route taken by the S carrier is exemplary (p. 116 of the book). Though he could come from many directions, one is imposed.


– GA says that Mark Harrison (the NPIA expert in missing persons who offered to call for specialized dogs among many other things) studied a death scenario whereas, in the translation of MH's report, there's no conclusion that the child was killed, it is just a possibility and MH says that other scenarios could be considered, which is confirmed in his second report.

– About the EVRD and CSI dogs, Mark Harrison claims that their alerts are only police clues and not proofs, they need to be corroborated. The important place given to the dogs in GA's book is explained just by the fact that the dogs don't lie.

– The passage..

foi comunicado o seguinte: o ADN do sangue encontrado na bagageira da viatura usada pelo casal McCann tem uma correspondência de 50% com Gerald McCann, devendo ser de um descendente seu.

We were told this : the DNA in the blood found in the boot of the car used by the McCann couple shows a 50% match with Gerald McCann, implying a filiation link.


.. sounds like a fiction novel, the objective being to manipulate the reader.

– In the following passage (p. 184) starting with..

Nos primeiros dias de Setembro...

On the first days of September...

.. logic is missing.

Lemos o relatório e não concordamos com a desilusão de Stuart (Prior, Leicestershire Constabulary superintendent)

We read the report (of the FFS Birmingham) and we don't agree with Stuart's delusion,
… which is however confirmed by the second report from the FFS.

Here RCA is trying to show that neither MH (who spoke of intelligence, nothing else), nor MG (who spoke of contamination, nothing else) nor SP supported the decision to make the McCanns arguidos. He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in the McCann flat, examines the handler's report that, contrary to the book, says that no human residues were localised and interprets the unsupported evidence as intending to manipulate. The statements of the British experts were wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese investigators and the result was the arguido statute imposed on the McCanns, as it is suggested by the then head of the PJ, Alípio Ribeiro.

– RCA refers to John Lowe (the head of the FFS) who clearly said that the DNA was incomplete and was a mixture of various persons' DNA, making any conclusion impossible. RCA notes that the Portuguese investigation team had time to contact John Lowe before drastically deciding to make the McCanns arguidos.

– Back to the dogs, an issue that GA's book emphasises, RCA questions the necessary handling rigour and quotes MG and MH while underlining that no evidence can be drawn from the dogs' alerts, a claim that is repeated in various reports and explains the UK tensions.

At that point, the judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, who has been listening with attention but without taking notes (is the hearing recorded as the other were ?) interrupts Dr Ricardo Afonso, telling him that he only has 5 minutes left and must conclude.

As another lawyer needs a short break, Dr Ricardo Afonso has some time to prepare his conclusion.

Nevertheless, after the break, he repeats details of the dogs' operation in the flat and wonders why the CC toy wasn't tested. He was obviously taken by surprise at the judge cutting him short. There's a moment of attempts to speak, hesitations and silences, ending with the lawyer simply saying "nothing more".

And so it was.

This rather unexpected end gains sense if all lawyers, including Dra Isabel Duarte, will produce written allegations.

It should be kept in mind that this speech lasted for about 2 hours. This is far to be a verbatim.

Thanks to Astro for clarifying some points.

Many thanks for smoothing the English to Ima, CPN and SP from QV whose members always welcome opponent opinion.

RCA alludes chronologically to 15 news articles (some of them in Spanish), after the book was published, accusing the McCanns of concealing the body or suggesting that the child had died in the bedroom or wondering whether she's alive, etc. He observes that those national and international articles on the alleged death of the child increased the sales of the book. He refers also to various authorities to demonstrate that the book and the documentary were essential elements to convince people that the child had died. He quotes page 221 of A verdade da mentira :

Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto ;

There was a simulation of abduction.

Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvimento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha ;

Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body.

A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trágico acidente ;

Death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident.
============================

McCann's 'lawyer' READS out in COURT, GA's 'theory'!

Whose 'side' is he on?



The lawyer 'quotes' the very ONE 'thing' the McCann's DON'T want people 'talking' about!

GA's 'THEORY'!

jeanmonroe wrote:RCA alludes chronologically to 15 news articles (some of them in Spanish), after the book was published, accusing the McCanns of concealing the body or suggesting that the child had died in the bedroom or wondering whether she's alive, etc. He observes that those national and international articles on the alleged death of the child increased the sales of the book. He refers also to various authorities to demonstrate that the book and the documentary were essential elements to convince people that the child had died. He quotes page 221 of A verdade da mentira :

Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto ;

There was a simulation of abduction.

Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvimento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha ;

Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body.

A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trágico acidente ;

Death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident.
============================

McCann's 'lawyer' READS out in COURT, GA's 'theory'!

Whose 'side' is he on?



The lawyer 'quotes' the very ONE 'thing' the McCann's DON'T want people 'talking' about!

GA's 'THEORY'!

Curious indeed.  If, as claimed happened in September 2007, the McCs were convinced of their own innocence and knew the evidence against them provided by forensics and those wholly unreliable specialist dogs to be non existent, those ....... tossers of the PJ would surely have been seen as easily beatable in a court of law?  To have faced their accusers in court and had the case against them dismissed would have been the quickest and surest route to vindication.  If innocent and the case against them so poor, the sensible, indeed perhaps the only genuine option, would have been to allow the investigation to take its course and fight the allegations in court.   

Yet the uncertain route was taken, to flee and find ways of avoiding justice, fighting endless costly and surely exhausting battles over public perception.  Things seem to have come full circle when the McCs own lawyer stands in court and publicises to all the reasons for their coming under suspicion, where they have broadly remained despite all countering efforts for 7 plus years.

What a strange plea from the Twins lawyer!

Was he under the impression that he was handling a penal case as a public prosecutor, and had to dissect the other sides evidence, or something?

Very, very strange.

Can't see how his two little clients could benefit from all of this.
At the very least he should have stated that they suffered (pain, damages, whatever) because of the contents of GAs book.

Which he apparently forgot to do, begging the question why he did so

IMHO

Here is another "must read".  Isn't it remarkable what the newspapers will print, when truth can no longer be sued?

Here it is in its entirety:

From Thorpe to paedophile MPs to torture, the ruling elite ALWAYS try to cover up their sins. That is why bids to constrain the media are so insidious

• Tom Mangold was first journalist to learn about Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy
  
• He believes Special Branch and Scotland Yard were well aware of the truth
  
• But they instinctively knew how to cover up a scandal to protect the MP
  
• Mr Mangold received calls from other Liberals warning him off the story 
  
• He believes the ‘right’ judge was hand-picked for the sensitive Thorpe trial 
  
• Mr Mangold was ordered to destroy his evidence or told he would be fired 
  
• Whitehall did not want another homosexual scandal incase it damaged Britain’s relationship with the U.S
  

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Published: 02:03, 13 December 2014 | Updated: 02:04, 13 December 2014



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

At the height of the controversy about Jeremy Thorpe and the conspiracy of silence that grew around his apparent involvement in a plot to kill his former lover Norman Scott, we began making a documentary film about the story for BBC television.
Little did I realise I, too, would soon become an unwitting figure in that conspiracy.
Our team had pitched the idea, in 1979, to an editor who later became the Corporation’s powerful Head of News. He agreed to our investigation but demanded to know absolutely everything we were doing. ‘Keep me in the picture, boys,’ he said, amicably, time and again.
Many years later, at his funeral, it emerged that this man had been a colonel in British Military Intelligence in the Territorial Army.





With the benefit of hindsight, it now becomes more than a mere suspicion that we investigative journalists at the cutting edge of the story were being gently manipulated by others in powerful positions — people who were anxious to know how much information there was about the developing scandal, how accessible it was, and what could be done to shut it down.

After all, how much easier to use unwitting real reporters than get spooks to pose as reporters to dig for information.

At the time, former Liberal party leader Jeremy Thorpe was a well-connected and charismatic politician from a social class that dominated the Whitehall establishment and Civil Service in those days back in the Seventies.

I believe I was the first journalist to learn Thorpe may have been involved in a conspiracy to silence one of his former gay lovers, Norman Scott, a stable boy from the West Country, who was needy, self-centred and dangerous.








When Thorpe ended their affair — which had begun many years before he became the Liberal leader — Scott began to blab about it to friends, other politicians and eventually the police. Initially, the allegations resulted merely in an internal Liberal party inquiry, which exonerated Thorpe — although he had been forced to deny that he’d had a sexual relationship with Scott.
I am sure the Special Branch, Devon police and Scotland Yard were well aware of the truth. However, as part of a conspiracy to protect the MP, they instinctively knew — without having to meet in secret in a smoke-filled room in the Reform club — how to cover up such a scandal.
F or the very last thing that Britain’s governing elite needed at the time was a high-profile homosexual scandal. Indeed, if it had been made public, it could have done irreparable damage to Britain’s relationship with our closest ally, America, whose government had just begun sharing nuclear secrets with us.
There had already been the huge embarrassment of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean (British members of a KGB spy ring that had penetrated MI6 and then passed vital information to the Soviets).





There had also been the case of John Vassall, a gay Admiralty official who had been compromised by Soviet KGB officers, and the scandal of War Minister John Profumo, who had bedded Christine Keeler while she was also sleeping with a Soviet naval attache. And those are only the cases the public knew about!

The Americans were already nervous that Britain had been so easily infiltrated by the KGB, and would have become still more alarmed to learn that yet another high-profile political figure had a secret life that left him vulnerable to potential blackmail and manipulation.

But if political land mines lay all over Whitehall for my investigative TV team to avoid, there were even more lying hidden in the corridors of the BBC — the beyond reproach ‘queen of broadcasting’ and ‘fountain of truth’. So what if the Daily Express or Daily Mirror had reported the Thorpe scandal, who would care? Such newspapers were considered to be ‘gutter press’ and with no influence.

But if the BBC, with its power and influence, ran a one-hour documentary ... to the Establishment, that would have been unacceptable.

I had been on the story for less than two weeks when I got a phone call from Jo Grimond, one of Thorpe’s predecessors as Liberal leader. ‘What you are doing is outrageous!’ he barked down the line. ‘Unless you stop at once, I’ll have you dismissed within hours by the [BBC’s] Director General, who I happen to know extremely well.’

We then received a torrent of threatening calls from another Liberal MP called Cyril Smith — who, ironically, since his death has been exposed as a predatory paedophile and a serial abuser of young boys, whose activities were covered up years later by the Establishment.

Nevertheless, we remained ‘protected’ from their wrath by an invisible shield within the BBC. I now think I know why.








I can’t prove it, but after a lifetime with the BBC — an organisation for which I have undying affection and whose initials remain stamped through my backbone like Blackpool rock — and after 40 years of making numerous films about intelligence and writing a book about the CIA, I do now, sadly, believe I and my team were being carefully manipulated by the state broadcaster.
Early on in our investigation, I flew to California, where I interviewed Thorpe’s closest chum, the Liberal MP Peter Bessell. I cassette-taped three hours of his full, astonishing story.
When I returned to the BBC HQ in London’s Lime Grove, a kindly executive told me I looked jet-lagged and took the cassette from me — ‘for safe keeping,’ he said. ‘I’ll keep it in the office safe.’
Funnily enough, however many times I requested or even demanded the tape’s return, I could never lay hands on it. We ploughed on regardless.
Slowly, we discovered the extent of the Whitehall conspiracy to cover up Thorpe’s behaviour. We learnt that the FBI had warned their Special Branch counterparts in Britain about Thorpe’s predilection for rent boys in Times Square during visits to New York.
As a result, Devon police were asked to make discreet inquiries — and the then Chief Constable, Sir Ranulph Bacon, made damn sure the results remained secret.
As the police/Special Branch file on Thorpe grew, it ‘disappeared’ from the registry in Scotland Yard and was placed where no one could see it — in the safe of the Assistant Commissioner (Crime).
I am indebted to the veteran intelligence historian Nigel West for reminding me there were ‘plenty of very sensitive’ Metropolitan Police Special Branch files that were kept by the Assistant Commissioner. He says: ‘It is no different at MI5, where some files would be retained by the appropriate section or in the MI5 director-general’s personal safe.’ West points out that MI5 was under no obligation to share intelligence about political figures with government ministers. Nor would any information obtained centrally by the police have been passed back to the local forces.
J oin all the dots and it is not surprising that when Thorpe’s ex-lover, Norman Scott, went to Chelsea police station to make a formal criminal complaint about the Liberal MP’s relationship with him, the leading officer, Bob Huntley (later to become head of the Yard’s bomb squad), didn’t bother to open an investigation.
‘Who would believe the word of a queer stable boy against that of Jeremy Thorpe?’ Huntley said when I interviewed him years later. There has never been any explanation of why that criminal complaint was not taken any further in terms of a prosecution. But you can bet a crate of Bollinger champagne that someone made sure Scott’s allegations went straight up to Special Branch.
Even so, Scott’s allegations were causing Thorpe sufficient damage that it was alleged the MP told a colleague: ‘We have to get rid of him.’ In due course, as the Old Bailey trial of Thorpe heard, a plot was devised to hire a hitman using Liberal party funds to solve the problem of Norman Scott.
The contract to murder him, for a fee worth £140,000 in today’s money, went first to a small-time South London villain called Dennis Meighan. However, although he dropped out at the last minute, he remained a key witness and would have been a crucial prosecution witness at any trial of Thorpe.



Quite correctly, Scotland Yard detectives got a damning — and true — statement from him.
But a few weeks later, Meighan took a phone call from an unidentified man who told him to go to Brentford Police Station where he was told he was ‘expected’. When referring to the local police, the caller used the expression ‘wooden-tops’, which was then commonly used by Special Branch in a sneering reference to their ‘lesser mortals’ in uniform.
Meighan went to Brentford, was ushered into an interrogation room, and handed an envelope which contained a new and totally different version of his statement about the plot to kill Norman Scott.
It exonerated Thorpe and the Liberals from any plot and also exonerated Meighan for conspiracy to kill, and possession of an illegally loaded Mauser. Meighan, who himself faced criminal charges, couldn’t believe his luck. He happily signed the false statement — and was never called as a witness to the subsequent Thorpe trial.
So what was behind one of the great cover ups of the 20th century? Jeremy Thorpe’s innocence was regarded as crucial to the national interest. Whitehall did not want another homosexual scandal, conscious of the damage it could pose to Britain’s relationship with the U.S., and also the deleterious effect it would have on the balance between rulers and ruled. But in a democracy, there is only so much a conspiracy of this enormity to protect such a high-profile politician from prosecution could achieve.
Eventually, such was the pressure from the Press, that the Director of Public Prosecutions was finally obliged to bring charges against Thorpe for his alleged role in the plot to murder his former male lover.
I am the opposite of a conspiracy theorist, but at this point I do get conspiratorial.



Particularly, there was the profoundly questionable choice of judge to hear the case at the Old Bailey. Not all judges are allocated trials on a simple roster basis. Sometimes, the Lord Chancellor (as the post was back then), who was head of the judicial system and a very powerful political appointment, had an oh-so discreet hand in these matters.
Sometimes, the ‘right’ judge was hand-picked for a sensitive trial … the kind of judge who shared without question the Establishment consensus. The result? The judge in question Sir Joseph Cantley’s summing up in the Thorpe case was a judicial farce. He virtually ordered the jury to find Thorpe not guilty.
A similar thing had happened a decade earlier in the trial which I covered of the society osteopath Stephen Ward, who had introduced Christine Keeler to Tory war minister John Profumo and was subsequently prosecuted for living on the earnings of prostitutes. In this case, though, the jury was encouraged to convict.
By now we had finished our Thorpe documentary — having uncovered overwhelming evidence of just how the Establishment had closed ranks. It was a remarkable snapshot of the period. But Thorpe was found innocent. Not surprisingly, on the night of the end of his trial, the BBC management, rightly, felt that it could not transmit our film, which was based on an assumption of Thorpe’s guilt.
But what happened next was odd.
The man who had commissioned the film sent a despatch rider to my home with a letter ordering me to destroy every existing tape of the film. If I didn’t do so, I would be fired.
And who was the BBC’s director general and chief executive in charge of news and current affairs at the time? None other than Sir Ian Trethowan, who had a very close, and editorially unhealthy, relationship with the Security Services. Three years later, he directly interfered with an investigative — and not always friendly — documentary I was making about MI5, ordering me to give my script to MI5 so they could vet it before transmission.
‘And you are to tell no one of this conversation,’ he instructed as I stood to attention in his office. The MI5 documentary was broadcast, but only after more Trethowan interference.
As BBC director-general at the time, it was in Sir Ian’s power to stop us making our Jeremy Thorpe film. But oddly he never used that power.
Is this because the information we turned up was helping to fatten the files of MI5? Were we unwittingly keeping MI5 in the picture? Ever since, I’ve never stopped wondering. But, deep down, I think I know the truth.
Compared with the Seventies, the BBC has matured and Britain today is a freer, more open, less class-ridden and secret society. Yet there are still justified concerns that when it can get away with it, the Establishment will cover up for its own.
Take the slow boiling scandal involving paedophilia rings and Westminster notables, and, this week, the row over the cover up of the CIA’s torture interrogation techniques — some of which were learned from Britain’s brutal behaviour in Northern Ireland — which were well known to Westminster governments of both stripes at the time.
Which is why I would argue that investigative journalism, for all its occasional dreadful mistakes, bad apples and cock-ups, is still a crucial part of the DNA of our democratic genes in Britain.
When establishments seek to control us, we should recognise that this is the thin end of the wedge. It is important to note that the Leveson Inquiry — set up to look into the ridiculous follies of phone-hackers (they even bugged my phone to find out what Panorama was up to, for Heaven’s sake!) — have led to serious attempts to constrain the Press and introduce an element of political involvement in our editorial freedom.
But this will merely take us back to where we were 40 years ago. I strongly believe there is one thing that we must remember above all. When any citizen wants help to expose corruption, hypocrisy, wrongdoing or corrosive inefficiency, there must be a newspaper, magazine or broadcast office which he or she can contact for help.
The British Establishment’s protective walls of secrecy of the Seventies will never be completely breached, but we can try to remain truly independent, vigilant and deserving tribunes of the people. That is our democratic duty and happens to be what we do best.

• Tom Mangold was senior correspondent of BBC TV Panorama from 1976-2003.
  

Particularly, there was the profoundly questionable choice of judge to hear the case at the Old Bailey. Not all judges are allocated trials on a simple roster basis. Sometimes, the Lord Chancellor (as the post was back then), who was head of the judicial system and a very powerful political appointment, had an oh-so discreet hand in these matters.
Sometimes, the ‘right’ judge was hand-picked for a sensitive trial … the kind of judge who shared without question the Establishment consensus. The result? The judge in question Sir Joseph Cantley’s summing up in the Thorpe case was a judicial farce. He virtually ordered the jury to find Thorpe not guilty.
A similar thing had happened a decade earlier in the trial which I covered of the society osteopath Stephen Ward, who had introduced Christine Keeler to Tory war minister John Profumo and was subsequently prosecuted for living on the earnings of prostitutes. In this case, though, the jury was encouraged to convict.
By now we had finished our Thorpe documentary — having uncovered overwhelming evidence of just how the Establishment had closed ranks. It was a remarkable snapshot of the period. But Thorpe was found innocent. Not surprisingly, on the night of the end of his trial, the BBC management, rightly, felt that it could not transmit our film, which was based on an assumption of Thorpe’s guilt.
But what happened next was odd.
The man who had commissioned the film sent a despatch rider to my home with a letter ordering me to destroy every existing tape of the film. If I didn’t do so, I would be fired.
And who was the BBC’s director general and chief executive in charge of news and current affairs at the time? None other than Sir Ian Trethowan, who had a very close, and editorially unhealthy, relationship with the Security Services. Three years later, he directly interfered with an investigative — and not always friendly — documentary I was making about MI5, ordering me to give my script to MI5 so they could vet it before transmission.
‘And you are to tell no one of this conversation,’ he instructed as I stood to attention in his office. The MI5 documentary was broadcast, but only after more Trethowan interference.
As BBC director-general at the time, it was in Sir Ian’s power to stop us making our Jeremy Thorpe film. But oddly he never used that power.
Is this because the information we turned up was helping to fatten the files of MI5? Were we unwittingly keeping MI5 in the picture? Ever since, I’ve never stopped wondering. But, deep down, I think I know the truth.
Compared with the Seventies, the BBC has matured and Britain today is a freer, more open, less class-ridden and secret society. Yet there are still justified concerns that when it can get away with it, the Establishment will cover up for its own.
Take the slow boiling scandal involving paedophilia rings and Westminster notables, and, this week, the row over the cover up of the CIA’s torture interrogation techniques — some of which were learned from Britain’s brutal behaviour in Northern Ireland — which were well known to Westminster governments of both stripes at the time.
Which is why I would argue that investigative journalism, for all its occasional dreadful mistakes, bad apples and cock-ups, is still a crucial part of the DNA of our democratic genes in Britain.
When establishments seek to control us, we should recognise that this is the thin end of the wedge. It is important to note that the Leveson Inquiry — set up to look into the ridiculous follies of phone-hackers (they even bugged my phone to find out what Panorama was up to, for Heaven’s sake!) — have led to serious attempts to constrain the Press and introduce an element of political involvement in our editorial freedom.
But this will merely take us back to where we were 40 years ago. I strongly believe there is one thing that we must remember above all. When any citizen wants help to expose corruption, hypocrisy, wrongdoing or corrosive inefficiency, there must be a newspaper, magazine or broadcast office which he or she can contact for help.
The British Establishment’s protective walls of secrecy of the Seventies will never be completely breached, but we can try to remain truly independent, vigilant and deserving tribunes of the people. That is our democratic duty and happens to be what we do best.

• Tom Mangold was senior correspondent of BBC TV Panorama from 1976-2003.
  

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"I strongly believe there is one thing that we must remember above all. When any citizen wants help to expose corruption, hypocrisy, wrongdoing or corrosive inefficiency, there must be a newspaper, magazine or broadcast office which he or she can contact for help.
The British Establishment’s protective walls of secrecy of the Seventies will never be completely breached, but we can try to remain truly independent, vigilant and deserving tribunes of the people. That is our democratic duty and happens to be what we do best."
-----------------------------------------------------------

There aren't enough 'laughing' emoticons to even come close to 'show' for that 'statement', Tom Mangold!

You fcuking hypocrite!

Incidentally, i expect 'our' Tom was up in arms, after watching the BBC's GrimeWatch 'special' regarding Operation Strange's 'investigation' into the 'disappearance' of a three years old child!

"meno' to Tom: (After October 2013, GrimeWatch 'broadcast')

'citizens' did turn to, contact, 'newspapers, magazines and broadcast offices' to 'help' but were told, like M Oldfield's 'advice' to J Wilkins, to 'search' for an 'abducted' child, 'your HELP isn't needed'!

The one aspect of the Jeremy Thorpe trial that stands out in my memory is the judge's summation. For perhaps the only time in living memory, the judge not only summed up in favour of the defence, he all but instructed the jury to acquit.

The only other instances where this generally occurs is in the rare cases of serving police officers who have stood trial for murdering civilians whilst on duty. These are show piece trials where judges and juries are carefully selected, whereby perhaps not unsurprisingly, there has never been an instance where a serving police officer has been convicted of murder whilst on duty.(certainly not in my lifetime, anyway)

And, adding, to the last 'post', CRUCIALLY,

"So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the EX.mo Sr. Procurador Geral da R'ublica [General Attorney], in order to:

G) New interrogation of the Arguidos Kate and Gerry McCann;
H) Evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;"

On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector

(Tavares de Almeida)
-----------------------------------------
But the McCann's had 'done a runner' on the 9th September 2007, just hours AFTER they were made arguido/arguida.

Coincidentally, so had ALL the UK Police, the same day!

And Ge££Y and Hate were then met, at EMA and 'escorted' to Rothley Manor, BY Special Branch, 'baggage handlers', officers!

Like everyone is, 'escorted' to their 'home', having returned from their holiday/s in Portugal to the UKl

Oh, hang on..................

jeanmonroe wrote:
-----------------------------------------
But the McCann's had 'done a runner' on the 9th September 2007, just hours AFTER they were made arguido/arguida.

I thought they were granted arguido status long before Sept. Jean and was under the impression that the aforementioned had been lifted prior to their departure from Portugal.

Realist wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:
-----------------------------------------
But the McCann's had 'done a runner' on the 9th September 2007, just hours AFTER they were made arguido/arguida.

I thought they were granted arguido status long before Sept. Jean and was under the impression that the aforementioned had been lifted prior to their departure from Portugal.

Realist, they were made arguidos on 7 September 2007, after they were called in for questioning. I believe (without having to look) that it was at this time that Kate refused to answer the 48 questions. The McCann's hot-footed it out of Portugal 2 days later, as Jean has correctly stated

Imo ridding Portugal of the McCanns' toxic presence was one of the more sensible decisions made in this sorry saga as it's highly improbable any prosecution would have succeeded at that particular time, PeterM.

sallypelt wrote:

Realist, they were made arguidos on 7 September 2007, after they were called in for questioning. I believe (without having to look) that it was at this time that Kate refused to answer the 48 questions. The McCann's hot-footed it out of Portugal 2 days later, as Jean has correctly stated

Thanks for the clarification, so they were still under arguido status when they left Portugal? It seems strange that they were allowed to leave Portuguese soil whilst still suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

I must be a tad confused here, because wasn't that interview with Sandra where Gerry stormed off, in a Portuguese studio and didn't she state that he was no longer under arguido status?(Maybe this was later upon the McCann's return to Portugal) I'm not attempting to be adversarial as I've obviously got some facts in my mind wrong here and would appreciate further clarification on the aforementioned.

Realist wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Realist, they were made arguidos on 7 September 2007, after they were called in for questioning. I believe (without having to look) that it was at this time that Kate refused to answer the 48 questions. The McCann's hot-footed it out of Portugal 2 days later, as Jean has correctly stated

Thanks for the clarification, so they were still under arguido status when they left Portugal? It seems strange that they were allowed to leave Portuguese soil whilst still suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

I must be a tad confused here, because wasn't that interview with Sandra where Gerry stormed off, in a Portuguese studio and didn't she state that he was no longer under arguido status?(Maybe this was later upon the McCann's return to Portugal) I'm not attempting to be adversarial as I've obviously got some facts in my mind wrong here and would appreciate further clarification on the aforementioned.

G McCann 'stormed' out of an 'interview' when the interviewer asked him about 'blood' being 'found' in their apartment.

Kate McCann said 'give him a minute, it's 'ot in 'ere!'

Justine the PR 'girl' said to GM '"STICK to the OFFICIAL line"

PeterMac wrote:Have a look in mccannfiles.  All the dates are set out there.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
They were de-arguidoed in 21 July 2008 when the case was shelved / archived / pending further evidence
(for the benefit of the brain dead pros who insist they were Cleared)

They were NOT.
(It is similar in almost very respect to being released from Police Bail.  It says nothing about the investigation, your Person of interest status, or anything else.)

So they were still under the equivalent of police bail when they left Portugal in Sept. 2007. Presumably they were obligated to return to Portugal at any time until they were de-arguidoed in July 2008.

Thanks, Jean, so that interview which I had mistakenly thought transpired with Sandra, must have taken place before the McCanns were made arguidoes.

jeanmonroe wrote:


---------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                                              But the McCann's had 'done a runner' on the 9th September 2007, just hours AFTER they were made arguido/arguida.

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

 They never even had time to pack their scrabble set away Jean.  

P Mac wrote: Which has been translated rather gently as........

H) Evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
------------------------------

I 'evaluated' THAT to be the 'choice' of 'restraint' between HANDCUFFS 'or' ZIP TIES!

And then i 'woke' up!

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

THX Anne&Pam

'MUST READ' (Part 2)

'DEFENCE' LAWYERS.

Libel trial McCann v Goncalo Amaral - Day 13 – Final defence speeches

The hearing as it happened

(10.12.2014, 12:15 pm)

a) The lawyer for Goncalo Amaral, Dr Miguel Cruz Rodrigues

MCR first says that he will limit his speech to the essential matter.

He speaks hammering the table once in a while with a marker. In the other hand he holds notes but he hardly looks at them.

He gets effectively straight to the point by saying that this action is in fact the way the McCanns have found to allow themselves to feel free from their guilt concerning the disappearance of their daughter due to neglect.

MCR underlines an indirect lack of coordination with the police entities since the companions of the McCanns didn't go to Portugal to take part in the reconstitution* requested by the prosecutor, an attitude that they knew would result in the shelving of the case.

Referring to the AG report, he observes that the claimants complied with its terms, instead of protesting as the report suggests they could or should have done.

The McCanns spoke of their state of mind being destroyed ; they mentioned anxiety, lack of appetite, sleep deprivation and feeling bad. However it seems impossible to prove whether this was due to the book or to the inevitable feeling of guilt concerning their own behaviour, lack of vigilance and limited collaboration with the police authorities.

And nothing more was said.

* I purposely do not translate the Portuguese "reconstituicão" with the British "reconstruction", because those two processes have neither the same principle (real protagonists vs actors) nor the same objective (seizing reality vs jogging memories).

b) The lawyer for Guerra&Paz, Dra Fatima de Oliveira Esteves

She first admires the judge's patience and pays her respects to her colleagues. She then greets the journalists (there's only a British one, with a translator, in the court room) while noting that whenever the claimants are present the room is full whereas when they're not, like to-day, the room is deserted, inferring from this that the defendant Goncalo Amaral is of no importance.

FOE speaks also with her arms, one hand holding notes that she hardly consults.

In the perspective of what the claimants intend with this action, she thinks that a story has to be told in a few sentences : four couples go on holiday with their little children. At night they have dinner close by and leave the children on their own in their bedrooms, sleeping. One disappears... The children were alone.

FOE recalls that every time any child disappears, that child's parents are suspected.

She stresses that the McCann facts were widely spread and published. It was the news (about the case), and not Goncalo Amaral, who shaped the image of the parents in the MSM.

Here Dra Fatima Esteves holds up GA's book while thumbing the pages and asks the audience to look at its size and thickness. There's irony in her voice when she turns towards GA, who is sitting at the bottom of the bench, next to his lawyer and asks..

All this product of your imagination written within 24 hours, Goncalo Amaral ? Congratulations !

FOE observes that the statements of the claimant's witnesses have been very vague. Two of these witnesses have been invited by Dra Isabel Duarte to hand in a written statement after their respective hearings (the judge initially rejected those statements, but an appeal was made and won).

About the first of these statements, Alan Pike's, FOE remarks that he provided a psychological support because of the disappearance of the child and not because of GA's book. But later Alan Pike was contacted when the McCanns were made arguidos and less than two days after they had left Portugal.

According to AP, the effects of a secondary trauma can be the worst, but, FOE wonders, how can it be measured and compared to a primary trauma ?

When, in the other written statement, David Trickey says that the situation is potentially traumatic for the McCann twins, he clearly means the disappearance of their sister, not the existence of the book. Therefore their well being depends on their parents, not on Goncalo Amaral. However DT concludes "because of the publication of the book", after having listed all the known traumas related to the disappearance of a sibling. But the trauma was not because of the book.

GA cannot be blamed for the aberrations of the newspapers.

FOE thinks that the financial aspect is central in this action and starts answering some of the claimant speech's points.

She understands that the feeling of guilt, the status of arguido and the media pressure didn't make the life of the McCanns comfortable.

But it was not the fault of Goncalo Amaral.

FOE then observes that the interference of the UK police went over acceptable limits. Every time something was requested, the UK police intervened.

About the McCann twins, If the claimants didn't want them to hear about GA's book, they should not have launched the present action. GA is being persecuted because he dared to think that the parents could have something to do with the crime. This lies at the heart of this case.

FOE refers to the fact that the case was shelved because the reconstitution (see note above) was made impossible. Now the case was only reopened due to alleged new evidence. But the public interest has dwindled and actually the claimants never asked for the reopening of the criminal investigation.

What about the Met investigation ? One witness (JT) points to the guilt of Robert M, the little girl is buried somewhere but where ? Excavations and new interviews are scheduled...

It's normal to want to write about a case, the secrecy of justice isn't in question.

Finally Dra Fatima Esteves reports that, as the claimants requested the extracts of GA's accounts, Guerra&Paz, who provided the documents, reacted requesting the extracts of Madeleine's Fund. Though the answer wasn't negative, they desisted because what really matters for Guerra&Paz is the truth.

And so it ended.

c) The lawyer for TVI, Dr Miguel Coroadinha

As Dra Fatima Esteves also did, Dr Miguel Coroadinha thanks the judge for the exemplary way she lead this action. Like her, he opens his arms when speaking and his voice's intonation is benignant. He has no visible notes.

He first observes that, on the day before (Tuesday 9th), the Red Tops' first pages were again about the McCanns, not about this trial, but about the Algarve, the Met and the new suspects. Therefore one has to infer that the case is still high on the agenda.

Unlike most cases, the media interest has not decreased, perhaps because of the mystery, the lack of evidence on either side.

But one has to admit that if the investigation was criticised and campaigns of information or disinformation were launched, it came from the claimants. There is no memory of a case of the disappearance of a child that has remained in the news for so long. If this case deserves to be studied, it is at least for that reason.

When Goncalo Amaral's book was published, after the investigation was closed, it boosted the public attention because for the first time a thesis different from the abduction was proposed to the public.

MC remarks that numbers have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Telling the court that "millions of spectators" watched the documentary isn't accurate. "2 million" is just the top of the curve. Millions of people were in contact with the program, having put it on with the intention of watching it, but the curve shows that they didn't see it entirely.

People have a legitimate curiosity for certain things and TVI followed that, intending to offer different perspectives about the McCann case. This is why TVI wished to broadcast both McCanns' documentary (directed by Emma Loach) and by A verdade da mentira inspired documentary. He recalls that McCanns decried the formal contract signed with TVI when they discovered that TVI had programmed GA's documentary. Hence they opted for SIC.

Attention to the case went on, investigations did too. Regarding the damages, it is difficult to distinguish the pain due to the disappearance of a child and the pain due to the thesis of the book.

The Expresso interview of the McCanns, published on the 6th of September 2008, shows how much they were conditioned by journalism :

- Expresso – Did you read The Truth of the Lie, the book that GA wrote ?

- Both McCanns – No.

- KMC – Why would I ?

- GMC – I won't learn anything from reading it.

- Expresso – It was a success in Portugal.

- GMC – Was it ? How many copies did it sell ?

- Expresso – Approximately 200 thousand...

- GMC – That is what can be called illicit enrichment.

At that time the McCanns didn't highlight the book.

Only later did they understand what the book suggested : a fact that was the main mistake of this particular criminal investigation (but no atonement here). That fact was omitting to inquire about the parents after 24 hours, as Moita Flores underlined in his statement.

MC observes (a laugh in his voice) that it can't be denied that there was a certain subservience in the relations with the UK police.

MC criticises the inclusion in the process of Alan Pike's and David Trickey's written 'complementary' statements, observing that those witnesses are close to the claimants, without the necessary distance for a contradictory debate. According to MC, these written reports should be discredited. (they were deposited last January but rejected by the judge as was the request of both McCanns to take the stand, an appeal was filed and won at the High Court for the three requests, a detail that partly explains why this trial was postponed for so many months).

Dr Miguel Coroadinho finally suggests that the wish of the McCanns is that no story other than theirs remains in people's minds. But democracy is vigilant and does not allow that. No unique and exclusive version of the McCann case will make history. 7 years distance is sufficient time for GA's book to be part of it.

And he said nothing else

d) The lawyer for VCFilmes, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto

Dr Henrique Costa Pinto also starts by thanking the judge and his colleagues. Unlike the claimant lawyer, once he begins speaking he doesn't refer to notes. His voice has an all round casual intonation.

He observes that the project was only to produce a documentary's version with subtitles. Regarding the number of unsold copies among the sold ones, those that had not been invoiced are the copies that remained. Destroying them had a cost. Regarding the providencia cautelar (summons for urgent proceedings), he mentions the existence of a pirate version that had damaged the figures.

Goncalo Amaral was entitled to receive 10% of copy rights, but it was calculated after (and not before) discounting the production costs).

HCP says that in his exhaustive analysis of the GA's book about the McCann investigation, Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso insists that its conclusion is linked to the events of September 2007, leading to the arguido status being put on the McCanns. There's also the issue of why the case was shelved, an issue that is linked to the lack of collaboration of the claimants' companions which caused damage to their 'friends'.

Here HCP refers to a passage of the AG report :

Temos para nos que os principais prejudicados foram os arguidos McCann, que perderam a possibilidade de comprovarem aquilo que desde a sua constituicão como arguidos têm protestado : a sua inocência face ao fatídico acontecimento ; também estorvada restou a investigacão, porque tais factos ficaram por esclarecer.

'We believe that the main damage was caused to the formal suspects (arguidos) McCann, who lost the possibility to confirm with proof what they have protested since they were constituted formal suspects : their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because such facts needed elucidation and remained deprived of it.'

HPC reminds also that, according to the AG Report, the death of the child was the more likely hypothesis.

(…) não foi conseguido qualquer elemento de prova que permita a um homem médio, à luz dos critérios da lógica, da normalidade e das regras gerais da experiência... enunciar sequer um prognostico consistente sobre o seu destino e inclusivamente – o mais dramático – apurar se ainda está viva ou se está morta, como parece mais provável.

'(…) it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for an average man, in the light of the criteria of logics, normality and general rules of experience... even to produce a consistent prognosis about her (the child's) destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.'

The book and the documentary, HPC remarks, reflect what is said at the end of the documentary :

O mistério persiste, o ex-inspector acredita que um dia se saberá a verdade. Por enquanto só sabemos que no dia 3 de Maio de 2007 Madeleine McCann desapareceu na Praia da Luz. Tinha 3 anos de idade e era um crianca feliz.

'The mystery persists. The former inspector believes that some day the truth will be known. For the time being all we know is that, on the 3rd of May 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared in Praia da Luz. She was 3 years old and she was a happy child.'

As they didn't provide the evidence requested by the Public Ministry, Dr Henrique Costa Pinto notes, the claimants grew irritated with the publications.

And that's how this hearing ended.

Not really...

Considering the time needed for the volume of informations to be digitalised, the judge asks the lawyers whether the 21st of Janeiro 2015 would suit them for the next session, one in which she will let them know what she'll retain as "matéria de prova" (matter that can be used as evidence) within the limits fixed for this trial.

WELL!

I can now 'see' WHY Izzy Bizzy didn't 'turn up'!

The 'defence' lawyers absolutely, imo, destroyed the McCanns 'case'!

In a 'nutshell'

THE McCANNS COULDN'T HAVE BEEN LESS 'BOVVERED' ABOUT MADELEINE'S 'DISAPPEARANCE'

No reconstruction, no begging not to 'shelve', no asking for case to be 're-opened', no 'co-operation' with investigation.

In short, NO 'NOTHING'!

If, IF, somehow GA 'loses' this libel claim case, there should be an immediate 'appeal'

But reading the 'evidence'  of the final 'arguments' there's NO WAY, imo, he can LOSE!

And, i believe, the McCann's 'know' it.

We'll see, won't we?

eta: Particularly 'impressed' by all the defence lawyers NON 'referral' to 'case notes'

Well, they didn't really need to 'read' from 'notes' did they?

They knew, just KNEW, their 'brief' comsumately!

With a little 'help' from the plaintiffs 'side!

I, for one, am impressed, by the defence lawyers.!

BRAVO

Agreed, Jean Monroe, absolutely!

Yes, well done the defence lawyers.  Very well done.

If the McCanns lose the libel trial it will allow the media to report other theories regarding the disappearance of Madeleine without fear of libel action.

Then, I believe,  SY will say something along the lines of "after an extensive and exhaustive investigation there is no evidence of any abduction or burglary but there is insufficient evidence to proceed with any other prosecution"

Then, unfortunately, a trial by media

I should have also 'added' to my previous 'post' that the defence lawyers, quite rightly, pointed, alluded to, the FACT, that the McCann's libel case almost certainly 'relied' on HEARSAY, 'evidence' of their 'symptons' the mainstay of THEIR, not Madeleine's, 'claim' against GA., by their, paid to travel to Portugal ( by monies from Madeleine's 'fund) 'witnesses'

Although why a millionaire film 'producer/director' would need 'subsidising' from 'donations', by kiddies, handicapped kiddies and OAP's to a 'search' fund, to travel to Portugal, is anybody's 'guess'.

This was 'noted' by many of us, on this forum, also!

Hearsay, hearsay, HEARSAY!

Not a piece of documental 'evidence'  produced to the court, by the McCann's, to prove, their 'symptoms' were actually 'REAL'

And not forgetting KM's stated aim, for the libel claim, originally, was to get 'justice' for Madeleine, for what GA 'did' to her, in his book, NOT any 'damages' to herself and GM.

Their sudden 'claims' of damages to THEMSELVES, came a long time AFTER his book was 'released', and they 'knew' how 'profitable' his book had become. (a whole YEAR later!)

IF i'm ever 'in court' i WANT one of those defence lawyers to defend me!