The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Mm11

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Regist10

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Jill Havern on 04.12.11 8:42

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/PDFs/Isobel%20Hudson%20Affidavit.pdf

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 112

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 211

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 310

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 411

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 510

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 611

paragraphs 21 and 23.1 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 710

paragraph 23.2 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 810

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 910

paragraph 29 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1010

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1110

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1210

paragraph 35 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1310

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1410

paragraph 43 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1510

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1610

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1710

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1810

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 1910

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2010

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2110

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2210

paragraph 76.1 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2310

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2410

paragraphs 76.3 and 79.1 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2510

paragraphs 79.2 and 79.3 redacted

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2610

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 2710


____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 16125
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by PeterMac on 04.12.11 17:04

An affidavit is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law. An affidavit is a type of verified statement ..., meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury,..." Wiki.

Para 9 - "The claimants found themselves thrust into the public eye as a result of the abduction of their three-year-old daughter..."

This is an affidavit. A sworn statement of fact.
What evidence does she have that this is correct ?
If she does have evidence that there was an abduction, she should have notified the relevant authorities as soon as she became aware of it.
If she does not, then she is stating as fact to the Court something which she does not know, and cannot prove to be true. On oath, and under penalty of perjury.

The wording is quite clear. She could have said "alleged", or "supposed" or "possible". She could have hedged it and qualified it, but she did not.
She is a lawyer whose command English is one of the main reasons for her success in her chosen profession.

It remains a matter of fact that not one of the professional and trained people who looked into this case was persuaded that there had been an abduction.
Only Kate McCann said so. Those who follow her simply accept her word, because in fact there is nothing else.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10872
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 04.12.11 18:33

@PeterMac wrote:An affidavit is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law. An affidavit is a type of verified statement ..., meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury,..." Wiki.

Para 9 - "The claimants found themselves thrust into the public eye as a result of the abduction of their three-year-old daughter..."

This is an affidavit. A sworn statement of fact.
What evidence does she have that this is correct ?
If she does have evidence that there was an abduction, she should have notified the relevant authorities as soon as she became aware of it.
If she does not, then she is stating as fact to the Court something which she does not know, and cannot prove to be true. On oath, and under penalty of perjury.

The wording is quite clear. She could have said "alleged", or "supposed" or "possible". She could have hedged it and qualified it, but she did not.
She is a lawyer whose command English is one of the main reasons for her success in her chosen profession.

It remains a matter of fact that not one of the professional and trained people who looked into this case was persuaded that there had been an abduction.
Only Kate McCann said so. Those who follow her simply accept her word, because in fact there is nothing else.


Para 9 - "The claimants found themselves thrust into the public eye as a result of the abduction of their three-year-old daughter..."

Indeed PeterMac, she could have said disappearance. In point of fact the other bit of that sentence is also strange because they weren't thrust into the public eye, they "thrust" themselves into the public eye, as not long after on the night, didn't one of the friends contact the media either BBC or Sky. I'm sure it is in one of the statements.

Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 1:14

So Isobel Hudson spent countless of hours FOC scrutinising and analysing this forum in order that her boss can issue writ and make tons of money out of their biggest account, and she even renders herself witness to this crime by supplying an affidavit sworn on oath blind supporting mccanns' abduction tale, when even Police cannot find any evidence to support abduction - INTERESTING?

TB'S lawyer should take note of her false statement hence perjury.


aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 1:45

@PeterMac wrote:An affidavit is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law. An affidavit is a type of verified statement ..., meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury,..." Wiki.

Para 9 - "The claimants found themselves thrust into the public eye as a result of the abduction of their three-year-old daughter..."

This is an affidavit. A sworn statement of fact.
What evidence does she have that this is correct ?
If she does have evidence that there was an abduction, she should have notified the relevant authorities as soon as she became aware of it.
If she does not, then she is stating as fact to the Court something which she does not know, and cannot prove to be true. On oath, and under penalty of perjury.

The wording is quite clear. She could have said "alleged", or "supposed" or "possible". She could have hedged it and qualified it, but she did not.
She is a lawyer whose command English is one of the main reasons for her success in her chosen profession.

It remains a matter of fact that not one of the professional and trained people who looked into this case was persuaded that there had been an abduction.
Only Kate McCann said so. Those who follow her simply accept her word, because in fact there is nothing else.

Petermac
Dont give her idea how to do her job as in should have stated "alleged" etc. Because if there is no abduction the mccanns have no case against TB.

IH should know better - its incredulous that she spent hours on this forum just to end up as witness for mccanns abduction theory.
This is what the mccanns were pre-empting when they talked about gagging the internet at the LI no doubt. Sly of them as usual.

TB should persuade a Police involved in the investigation or a crime expert to come and act as his witness.
Best invite Martin Grime to be his witness. Martin Grime just have to tell the Court about the dogs alerts and it should suffice.

In mccanns case we are not talking about dogs given only one venue to work over as may be the case with other cases where the mccanns discredit the dogs claiming inaccurate alerts or unsupported by forensics blah blah blah.

In their case, dogs were given numeral venues to work with, including those apartments of their holiday friends,and Murat's residence. NOTE that only spots in mccanns' apt specifically and things belonging to mccanns family [u]in particular were marked. And not one spot/thing in those other venue where dogs worked over was marked.

Also a dozen or so cars were lined up for the forensics with the result the dogs alerted to ONLY mccanns' hired car. In that sort of circumstances can people realistically say the dogs markings were merely accidental - out of so many venues and objects given the dogs alerted to only things specific to mccanns? Can the mccanns explain why only their belongings were marked?

They can discredit the dogs as much as they like, but when it comes to the crunch, people including Expert in that area and Court Judges or Jury should decide for themselves how to explain the coincidence of 11 markings specific to only mccanns belongings bearing in mind the fact that the dogs were given more than the mccanns belongings and living quarters to work with.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Jill Havern on 05.12.11 8:38

Isabel Hudson refers to 'well-wishers' in her sworn affidavit who have passed information about Tony Bennett and others to her.

Here is a list of some of the sites run by the 'well-wishers'

Muratfan (who claimed he was sponsored by Carter Ruck)

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Mfcr10

https://twitter.com/#!/muratfan
http://tonybennettmfblog.blogspot.com/
http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/

Tony 'crazytony' Winters

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/

Bonnybraes - JATYK

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/

PFA2

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/index

Stop the myths

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/

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

And a little about Mike Gunnill who set up Tony Bennett for Carter Ruck

Mike Gunnill

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t403-a-question-for-mike-gunnill-alias-petert-on-jatyk-alias-peter-tarwin-alias-jason-peters

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 16125
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 9:13

Does this tantamount to CR entrapment of TB?

How can a law firm staff give a sworn affidavit as to whether there is an abduction or not; or that Madeleine didnt die in the apt, when that is strictly down to investigator's process evidence and court to decide on which way the evidence points to?

Since when a law firm's staff is allowed to assume the innocence or otherwise of their client. In that case, what is the whole point of a judiciary system if law firm is allowed to interfere with the system by being biased and claiming the innocence of their client, without a shred of evidence to support abduction theory apart from their client's words.

Every perpetrator denies their deed until they are prosecuted then it becomes a different story altogether and suddenly police's theory have been right all along. Look at Tabak's case or Prout's case for example. Despite the dogs marking Prout's killer denied killing her and look what's the outcome now? So who are the CR to decide on their client's innocence and who is Isabel Hudson to assume anything based on the entrapment of her 'well wishers'.

If mccanns wish to force people to stop from positing the view that Maddie died in the apt and they were involved then they should place a worldwide ban on that. First of all, they should ask Portugal to remove all their investigation process, then they should apply for a worldwide injunction forbidding people from having that view of discussing that view. Why target TB and suppress his voice ONLY when all others under the sun can have a view against the mccanns theory?
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Xavier on 05.12.11 9:36

May I ask where you get your legal knowledge from, Aiyoyo?
avatar
Xavier

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 10:47

It seems certain people seem to think people must have legal knowledge in order to have a right to have a view .
By that twisted logic does it imply it is OK for IH to assume a client's theory is correct or swear on oath that to be correct just because she has legal knowledge?
What will happen if in the future she is proven wrong, and the perpetrators people suspected are prosecuted.
should IH then be prosecuted for perjury or a more serious crime of entrapment?

Confusing human rights to freedom of speech with having legal knowledge to have a view perhaps is trying to obfuscate matter for a purpose
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Paddy on 05.12.11 11:36

I thought it was the job of the lawyer to tell lies on behalf of their clients. I thought a very successful lawyer was actually a very successful liar.

Justice seems to be about who has the most money and who can tell the most convincing lies.

Being a lawyer is hardly anything to be proud of especially when covering up the death of a child.

____________________

Paddy
Paddy

Posts : 10
Join date : 2011-07-24

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 11:42

That is a very valid point Paddy and welcome to the forum. Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 3711883763
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 12:29

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Mfcr10


To me, this would suggest that Carter Ruck are paying people, by 'sponsoring them', to verbally abuse anyone who does not believe the McCann's version of Madeleine's alleged disappearence. Or have I got that wrong?

What does "sponsored by" actually mean?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 12:36

spon·sor (spnsr)
n.
1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission.
3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.
tr.v. spon·sored, spon·sor·ing, spon·sors
To act as a sponsor for.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sponsor
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Jill Havern on 05.12.11 12:37

I've just received this anonymous message via email for inclusion here:

Isabel Hudson.
For a woman who purports to be a legal representative for the McCanns, and who
makes a sworn affidavit, purporting her clients’ version of events as the only
true version, and that all others are ‘wild conspiracy theories’, Isabel Hudson
makes some very bad errors with unguarded phrases, spattered throughout her
sworn affidavit.

A few examples.

Page 11 item 34
“Goncalo Amaral, a discredited Portuguese police officer”
discredited ? Perhaps Goncalo Amaral would like to know what Isabel is writing
in her sworn affidavit. Is she here not guilty of promulgating the hearsay and
damaging reports in UK newspapers against this man.

It would be interesting to see if she gets ‘Carter Rucked’ by Goncalo Amaral for
the above statement in her sworn affidavit.

“Jill Havern forum…dedicated to the discussion of various conspiracy theories”
conspiracy ? Isabel, in her sworn affidavit is effectively accusing me, a
participant on the above forum, of being involved in ‘conspiracy'. I do not
think I am conspiring, I am discussing the possibility of different ‘theories’
because I simply do not find anything regarding the McCanns’ version of events
as capable of persuading me that Madeliene was ‘abducted’.
For me, her disappearance must therefore have a different explanation. For the
sake of that little child, I find it morally essential to seek to find out what
‘actually did’ happen to her.

Page 3 item 10
“….apologies from a number of national newspapers which acknowledged that the
Claimants were completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s
disappearance. As noted above, these apologies were followed that summer by the
confirmation of the Portuguese Prosecutor that the police had found no evidence
linking the Claimants to their daughter’s abduction.”

So Isabel’s sworn affidavit considers that the press have been in a legal /
judicial position to judge the McCanns as innocent of Madeleine’s
‘DISAPPEARANCE’ and the Portuguese Prosecutor (not named) confirms no evidence
linking the Claimants to their daughter’s ‘ABDUCTION’.

Which is it Isabel ? Disappearance or abduction? There is no evidence of an
abduction that anyone, anywhere has been able to posit, therefore the police
cannot link the parents to something that cannot be shown to exist. The
Portuguese Prosecutor’s alleged confirmation of the above however is not a claim
that they were not involved in her disappearance.

Even stretching the elastic to its furthest point possible, in trying to give,
even an iota of credence to the possibility that Jane Tanner might actually have
seen a man carrying a child, this could just as easily have been any parent
carrying their own child back home, in a totally legitimate fashion.
There is absolutely no evidence available in the public sector, at this moment
in time, that can justly argue and prove the case, that Madeleine was in fact
‘abducted’.

Page 13 item 39
‘intent on casting doubt’… Isabel, there IS doubt, that is the material point.
Doubt has been cast by the McCanns, whose story does not add up. Some people do
doubt it. They wish to exercise their human right to discuss their doubt. Hence
the forum. Is that not OK with you?
Are you taking on the role of policing people’s rights to express their
concerns, whilst apparently feeling that you are quite free to express your own
and your clients’ theories, without contradiction or risk of being taken to
court (i.e. Carter Rucked) for expressing your opinions.

Page 14 item 44
“Goncalo Amaral’s baseless suspicions”… Sorry Isabel, but who gives you the
right to state, in your sworn affidavit, that Amaral’s suspicions are ‘baseless’
? The case has not YET been tried in a court of law.

Page 15 item 47
“the wild conspiracy theories” again Isabel, where is your proof that any of the
‘theories’ being discussed in an effort to get to the truth of what happened to
Madeleine, are (a) acts of conspiracy and (b) wild ?

Clearly the McCanns want no discussion on the matter of their daughter’s
disappearance.
Why? That is the question.
There IS doubt as to their version of events. People have the right to express
their views.

On a television programme such as the BBC’s Question Time, different viewpoints
can be openly discussed and argued before an audience and then the television
public.

Since access to open discussion re the concerns over the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann with the general public has been stymied by gags of unknown
dimension, and since you are in the business of delivering your infamous Carter
Rucking gags, the balance of reporting is no longer in balance.

Finding outlets to discuss openly, as on the internet, does not give you the
justified right to over-ride the freedom of speech laws and enforce your gagging
orders on people, denying them their freedom of expression.
Yours is a commercial business, making money out of silencing people. It has no
place in any court of human rights where people are granted, as of fundamental
and constitutional right, the freedom of expression.
Just why are you here and what do you hope to achieve? The more you try to
suppress open discussion to find a solution to the doubts raised, the more doubt
is cast upon your clients and their version of the disappearance of their little
daughter, Madeleine.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 16125
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 12:44

[quote="candyfloss"]spon·sor (spnsr)
n.
1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission.
3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.
tr.v. spon·sored, spon·sor·ing, spon·sors
To act as a sponsor for.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sponsor[/quote]

Thanks Candyfloss, so I'm not mistaken then.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by PeterMac on 05.12.11 12:49

Page 13 item 39
‘intent on casting doubt’… Isabel, there IS doubt, that is the material point.

And that is all a defence lawyer has to do. To put some tiny doubt in the minds of the jury. They do not have to prove their client's innocence, merely to show that the case is not proved "beyond a reasonable doubt". And the client walks free.

If the McCanns were ever to stand trial for anything, their defence lawyer would be doing precisely this.
Casting doubt.
That is all. Not explaining, not proving, not showing that another was responsible.
Casting doubt.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10872
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 12:57

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:I've just received this anonymous message via email for inclusion here:

Isabel Hudson.
For a woman who purports to be a legal representative for the McCanns, and who
makes a sworn affidavit, purporting her clients’ version of events as the only
true version, and that all others are ‘wild conspiracy theories’, Isabel Hudson
makes some very bad errors with unguarded phrases, spattered throughout her
sworn affidavit.

A few examples.

Page 11 item 34
“Goncalo Amaral, a discredited Portuguese police officer”
discredited ? Perhaps Goncalo Amaral would like to know what Isabel is writing
in her sworn affidavit. Is she here not guilty of promulgating the hearsay and
damaging reports in UK newspapers against this man.

It would be interesting to see if she gets ‘Carter Rucked’ by Goncalo Amaral for
the above statement in her sworn affidavit.

“Jill Havern forum…dedicated to the discussion of various conspiracy theories”
conspiracy ? Isabel, in her sworn affidavit is effectively accusing me, a
participant on the above forum, of being involved in ‘conspiracy'. I do not
think I am conspiring, I am discussing the possibility of different ‘theories’
because I simply do not find anything regarding the McCanns’ version of events
as capable of persuading me that Madeliene was ‘abducted’.
For me, her disappearance must therefore have a different explanation. For the
sake of that little child, I find it morally essential to seek to find out what
‘actually did’ happen to her.

Page 3 item 10
“….apologies from a number of national newspapers which acknowledged that the
Claimants were completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s
disappearance. As noted above, these apologies were followed that summer by the
confirmation of the Portuguese Prosecutor that the police had found no evidence
linking the Claimants to their daughter’s abduction.”

So Isabel’s sworn affidavit considers that the press have been in a legal /
judicial position to judge the McCanns as innocent of Madeleine’s
‘DISAPPEARANCE’ and the Portuguese Prosecutor (not named) confirms no evidence
linking the Claimants to their daughter’s ‘ABDUCTION’.

Which is it Isabel ? Disappearance or abduction? There is no evidence of an
abduction that anyone, anywhere has been able to posit, therefore the police
cannot link the parents to something that cannot be shown to exist. The
Portuguese Prosecutor’s alleged confirmation of the above however is not a claim
that they were not involved in her disappearance.

Even stretching the elastic to its furthest point possible, in trying to give,
even an iota of credence to the possibility that Jane Tanner might actually have
seen a man carrying a child, this could just as easily have been any parent
carrying their own child back home, in a totally legitimate fashion.
There is absolutely no evidence available in the public sector, at this moment
in time, that can justly argue and prove the case, that Madeleine was in fact
‘abducted’.

Page 13 item 39
‘intent on casting doubt’… Isabel, there IS doubt, that is the material point.
Doubt has been cast by the McCanns, whose story does not add up. Some people do
doubt it. They wish to exercise their human right to discuss their doubt. Hence
the forum. Is that not OK with you?
Are you taking on the role of policing people’s rights to express their
concerns, whilst apparently feeling that you are quite free to express your own
and your clients’ theories, without contradiction or risk of being taken to
court (i.e. Carter Rucked) for expressing your opinions.

Page 14 item 44
“Goncalo Amaral’s baseless suspicions”… Sorry Isabel, but who gives you the
right to state, in your sworn affidavit, that Amaral’s suspicions are ‘baseless’
? The case has not YET been tried in a court of law.

Page 15 item 47
“the wild conspiracy theories” again Isabel, where is your proof that any of the
‘theories’ being discussed in an effort to get to the truth of what happened to
Madeleine, are (a) acts of conspiracy and (b) wild ?

Clearly the McCanns want no discussion on the matter of their daughter’s
disappearance.
Why? That is the question.
There IS doubt as to their version of events. People have the right to express
their views.

On a television programme such as the BBC’s Question Time, different viewpoints
can be openly discussed and argued before an audience and then the television
public.

Since access to open discussion re the concerns over the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann with the general public has been stymied by gags of unknown
dimension, and since you are in the business of delivering your infamous Carter
Rucking gags, the balance of reporting is no longer in balance.

Finding outlets to discuss openly, as on the internet, does not give you the
justified right to over-ride the freedom of speech laws and enforce your gagging
orders on people, denying them their freedom of expression.
Yours is a commercial business, making money out of silencing people. It has no
place in any court of human rights where people are granted, as of fundamental
and constitutional right, the freedom of expression.
Just why are you here and what do you hope to achieve? The more you try to
suppress open discussion to find a solution to the doubts raised, the more doubt
is cast upon your clients and their version of the disappearance of their little
daughter, Madeleine.

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 765862 Thank you anonymous. Isabel Hudson's Affidavit 636911712
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Jill Havern on 05.12.11 12:59

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Mf11

A message to Tony from 'Carter-Ruck sponsored well-wisher' Ian 'muratfan' West.

Nice people you've got working for you Isabel.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 16125
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Gillyspot on 05.12.11 13:27

Thanks to "Anonymous" for some excellent observations from Isabel Hudson's Affidavit.

As regards Muratfan just have a look at his timeline on twitter of last night ( @muratfan ) and see what type of person he really is.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Join date : 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty The dregs of society

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 13:58

I wouldn't know how to access Murat Fan's ramblings on Twitter but I already have all the information I need to decide what sort of a person he is!

I'm glad you've changed your avatar Gillyspot from that ghastly photo of Kate pulling a stupid face; it wasn't doing my blood pressure any good!
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 15:19

IH full of errors and contradiction affidavit is meant for kangaroo court perhaps.

This is going to come back and haunt her sooner or later now that SY is seriously studying the work (or is it setup) of mccanns private detectives.
we shall see whether her boss will throw her under the bus when it comes to that.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Xavier on 05.12.11 16:13

@aiyoyo wrote:IH full of errors and contradiction affidavit is meant for kangaroo court perhaps.

This is going to come back and haunt her sooner or later now that SY is seriously studying the work (or is it setup) of mccanns private detectives.
we shall see whether her boss will throw her under the bus when it comes to that.

Perhaps to understand this you need to look at the way in which the law works, and the facts of this case. I am not being provocative, merely think that an understanding of the facts may be helpful in discussing what is happening, rather than some rather wild speculation.

You wrote earlier: Since when a law firm's staff is allowed to assume the innocence or otherwise of their client. In that case, what is the whole point of a judiciary system if law firm is allowed to interfere with the system by being biased and claiming the innocence of their client, without a shred of evidence to support abduction theory apart from their client's words.


The fact is that under English law, the McCanns are innocent. So it is not a question of claiming innocence.

The firm will be biased in favour of the McCanns. They are representing them, and they do not need to be even handed or unbiased. It is the courts role to decide on who has a better case - the plaintiff or the defendant.

There is another post where Hudson refers to Amaral as "discredited" and it is suggested that this could be actionable. Not nice tactics, but unlikey to be actionable as he was convicted of a criminal offence of suffient seriousness to warrant a custobial sentence.

It is worthwhile remembering that the McCanns are not on trial, and will not have to prove anything.

Unfair as it may seem, it is Tony who will have to answer a case that he has breached the high court undertaking that he signed in 2009. And it is Carter Rucks job to present their case within the rules. There are court rules and guidelines and it does not look as though Hudson has breached any of them - although she does come pretty close.
avatar
Xavier

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Guest on 05.12.11 16:29

@Xavier wrote:There is another post where Hudson refers to Amaral as "discredited" and it is suggested that this could be actionable. Not nice tactics, but unlikey to be actionable as he was convicted of a criminal offence of suffient seriousness to warrant a custobial sentence.

I kept this from a fantastic post by the poster Me, for just such an occassion.

"Ah the convicted perjurer line again. This is in relation to the Cipriano case, based on the evidence of a child murderer who was having an incestuous affair with her brother and murdered her daughter.

This from a convicted murderer whose story changed so many times and who couldn’t identify the persons responsible for torturing her.

Let’s be clear exactly what Amaral was found guilty of. He was found guilty of “false testimony” because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his staff, that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

However his defense, according to what the papers in Portugal said throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

So you can use that as a stick to diminish his credibility or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions as to the validity of that charge and his involvement in it".
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by aiyoyo on 05.12.11 16:37

Stella wrote:
@Xavier wrote:There is another post where Hudson refers to Amaral as "discredited" and it is suggested that this could be actionable. Not nice tactics, but unlikey to be actionable as he was convicted of a criminal offence of suffient seriousness to warrant a custobial sentence.

I kept this from a fantastic post by the poster Me, for just such an occassion.

"Ah the convicted perjurer line again. This is in relation to the Cipriano case, based on the evidence of a child murderer who was having an incestuous affair with her brother and murdered her daughter.

This from a convicted murderer whose story changed so many times and who couldn’t identify the persons responsible for torturing her.

Let’s be clear exactly what Amaral was found guilty of. He was found guilty of “false testimony” because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his staff, that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

However his defense, according to what the papers in Portugal said throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

So you can use that as a stick to diminish his credibility or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions as to the validity of that charge and his involvement in it".

Stella,

It's so obvious xavier is not interested in the facts surrounding amaral's perjury, neither is he here for the same purpose as us even though he purported to be. HIs tail been showing for a long time.

Just to add he's here to gloat over TB's mishap. Notice how he targets and circles in on TB?
He's pro-mccanns through and through and despite his pretense he does not fool me.....
but 'no worry' as we say in french 'sans souci' ....we know all about rat among our midst don't we and they are here out of fear. Fear that TB is very close to the knuckles and the mccanns in danger of being exposed for the liars they are.

Interesting...just watch this space for the rat to reappear, or the next morphorsized (sp) rat.......I can smell them coming from miles off.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit Empty Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Post by Xavier on 05.12.11 19:14

Stella - I fear the whys and wherefores of Amarals conviction will be of little interest to the court. If anyone tries to dispute Hudsons comment that he is discredited, then it is only the verdict of the Portuguese Court that will be taken into account.

Now Aiyoyo -

Stella,

It's so obvious xavier is not interested in the facts surrounding amaral's perjury, neither is he here for the same purpose as us even though he purported to be. HIs tail been showing for a long time.


I am interested and aware of them. However - they are totally irrelevant in the context of Isabel Hudsons affidavit.

Just to add he's here to gloat over TB's mishap. Notice how he targets and circles in on TB?
He's pro-mccanns through and through and despite his pretense he does not fool me.....
but 'no worry' as we say in french 'sans souci' ....we know all about rat among our midst don't we and they are here out of fear. Fear that TB is very close to the knuckles and the mccanns in danger of being exposed for the liars they are.


You really do seem to be paranoid, Aiyoyo. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point to any post where I have "gloated" over TBs mishap. As it happens, in my opinion I think TB knew exactly what he was doing in provoking the McCanns to take action. I just think it is playing with fire, and I hope he knows what he is doing and has a plan B. I wish him well and would be happy to help, if he wants any.

You may not agree with my posts, and that is your right. I do not agree with much of what you say. Especially when you try to "lay down the law". But that each of us has a right to say it. Maybe you disagree?

My opinion of Pat Brown is rather different however - I do not think she has any credibility and anyone putting faith in her ability to crack the case or indeed to make a case against against the McCanns or Carter Ruck is doomed to disappointment.

What is this lapse into french - vous parlez bien francais, peut etre? "sans souci" actually means "Carefree" but "no worries" is almost the same. A private joke with Stella perhaps?

Interesting...just watch this space for the rat to reappear, or the next morphorsized (sp) rat.......I can smell them coming from miles off.


Perhaps you have been watching the wrong kind of movies. Ratatouille anyone?
avatar
Xavier

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum