Re: Numbers - figures speak for themselves

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 8:47

aiyoyo wrote:Professional PI - 1

Amateur PI - 6

Protestations by Directors and Trustees of the Fund, by Lawyers for the Fund, and Auditors for the Fund, and by Spokespersons for the TM
that they were employing Big boys, and had performed "Due Diligence" on them all - DESTROYED by one Professional PI, in court, under oath

ALL

by Mike 17.09.13 9:16

Wasn't Arthur Cowley a former policeman turned PI?

Didn't they work together?

Is DE saying Cowley was an unprofessional PI?

Or maybe it's because he knows Cowley's ALPHAIG LTD company was bogus.

by jeanmonroe 17.09.13 12:16

Number of times the words 'abducted' or 'abduction' has been uttered in the court room trial in Portugal to date.

1 i think. (EL?)

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 13:20

jeanmonroe wrote:Number of times the words 'abducted' or 'abduction' has been uttered in the court room trial in Portugal to date.

1 i think. (EL?)

Interesting statistic, because we remember the last time the "A" word was uttered in a court of law the lawyer who used it had to back down, on the record, and admit, either cravenly or honestly, that despite having worked on the case for five years, and having given vital assistance with the book - which she did not then read - she had not a shred of evidence to support its use.

I suspect the witnesses were briefed and warned off, but EL was so far away with the fairies, and in full "Wait till you see my next documentary" mode that she could not suppress it.

by jeanmonroe 17.09.13 13:40

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Number of times the words 'abducted' or 'abduction' has been uttered in the court room trial in Portugal to date.

1 i think. (EL?)
Interesting statistic, because we remember the last time the "A" word was uttered in a court of law the lawyer who used it had to back down, on the record, and admit, either cravenly or honestly, that despite having worked on the case for five years, and having given vital assistance with the book - which she did not then read - she had not a shred of evidence to support its use.

I suspect the witnesses were briefed and warned off, but EL was so far away with the fairies, and in full "Wait till you see my next documentary" mode that she could not suppress it.

Just done a quick check.
EL has said the 'A' words 2 times.

Dave 'Grabbit' Edgar not even once.

Even McCann's super lawyer ID says: "Are they based on the McCann couple's thesis" astutely avoiding using the 'A' words.

and she has not used the 'A' word/s in relation to questions to ANY of the witnesses, so far.

weird huh?

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 15:44

jeanmonroe wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Number of times the words 'abducted' or 'abduction' has been uttered in the court room trial in Portugal to date.

1 i think. (EL?)
Interesting statistic, because we remember the last time the "A" word was uttered in a court of law the lawyer who used it had to back down, on the record, and admit, either cravenly or honestly, that despite having worked on the case for five years, and having given vital assistance with the book - which she did not then read - she had not a shred of evidence to support its use.
I suspect the witnesses were briefed and warned off, but EL was so far away with the fairies, and in full "Wait till you see my next documentary" mode that she could not suppress it.
Just done a quick check.
EL has said the 'A' words 2 times.
Dave 'Grabbit' Edgar not even once.
Even McCann's super lawyer ID says: "Are they based on the McCann couple's thesis" astutely avoiding using the 'A' words.
and she has not used the 'A' word/s in relation to questions to ANY of the witnesses, so far.

weird huh?

No I don't think it is weird.
The McCanns and Carter-Ruck will remember only too well TB's simple question to Mrs Hudson / Matorell, and her answer, which told the world everything it needed to know about the " Abduction"
On the record. In the High Court of Justice of England. Available to anyone who cares to read the transcript of the trial.
And we remember that they then agreed quietly to "forget about" a third of a million pounds in costs, and got the whole thing wrapped up very quickly after, with the assistance of a QC.
TB's aware of costs against him would not have covered even one day of her attendance.
That was the haste and the urgency with which they sought to close it all down.

So when we calculate the costs of all their litigation we must ADD the third of a million "loss" in the TB proceedings.
It was a pyrrhic victory. The won the case, lost the costs, lost their clients' long term argument, and showed the world - or that part of it which can understand - that their clients have no case.

So not weird. Part of the pre-trial briefing.

by aiyoyo 17.09.13 15:53

If ID had briefed them she must have been talking to wall.

The witnesses were a disaster from start to finish.

No doubt they' ll learn from experience, recoup, and come up better prepared for the next round.

The long in between recess is not always advantageous. The iron must be struck while hot.

So far Mccanns 0 Amaral 1

by susible 17.09.13 16:19

aiyoyo wrote:If ID had briefed them she must have been talking to wall.

The witnesses were a disaster from start to finish.

No doubt they' ll learn from experience, recoup, and come up better prepared for the next round.

The long in between recess is not always advantageous. The iron must be struck while hot.

So far Mccanns 0 Amaral 1

Considering that this trial is the most obvious case of vexatious litigation, I doubt that any witness would be able to substantiate any of the claims, even if you gave them a year recess...come to think about it, they did have several years to come up with evidence, they can't, plain and simple

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 17:41

I think they have finished, and the next two day round is GA's - with the other respondents. Don't forget he is not alone in this.
Then one last day for the two final addresses.
And a reserved judgment.

So if this is correct that was it. That was the totality of the McCanns' case. We don't get any more laughs.
They have nothing else,
They brought a psychologist who is irrelevant anyway, but says that GA's book might cause damage but KM's book - one assumes - won't
A very strange intervention by a lawyer
Mother Hubbard who doesn't know - well - very much at all, actually
A fantasist who makes fantasy films and sees visions of books in bookshops.
And a Number One Ladies Private detective Agency Detective, invented AFTER Mitchell had told the world about the nonexistent company - which had then hastily to be invented -
who has proved beyond a risible doubt that the Fund is a Fraud, and has been badly and negligently managed right from the start.
Until HE, the great professional came on the scene and firstly destroyed the Tanner sighting with one word (woman ), then mucked the Barcelona docks nonsense, by simply not bothering to do any enquiries, ( but one assumes charging the expenses!), and then came up with the current orthodoxy - in the sense that it was the last pronouncement and has never been retracted -
that "Madeleine is being held in a "Hellish Lair in the Lawless Hinterland within 10 miles of Praia da Luz".
But we are not going to look ! !

"That is the case for the Prosecution, Your Honour "

And they have paid ID for this.

by aiyoyo 17.09.13 18:51

PeterMac wrote:I think they have finished, and the next two day round is GA's - with the other respondents. Don't forget he is not alone in this.
Then one last day for the two final addresses.
And a reserved judgment.

So if this is correct that was it. That was the totality of the McCanns' case. We don't get any more laughs.
They have nothing else,
They brought a psychologist who is irrelevant anyway, but says that GA's book might cause damage but KM's book - one assumes - won't
A very strange intervention by a lawyer
Mother Hubbard who doesn't know - well - very much at all, actually
A fantasist who makes fantasy films and sees visions of books in bookshops.
And a Number One Ladies Private detective Agency Detective, invented AFTER Mitchell had told the world about the nonexistent company - which had then hastily to be invented -
who has proved beyond a risible doubt that the Fund is a Fraud, and has been badly and negligently managed right from the start.
Until HE, the great professional came on the scene and firstly destroyed the Tanner sighting with one word (woman ), then mucked the Barcelona docks nonsense, by simply not bothering to do any enquiries, ( but one assumes charging the expenses!), and then came up with the current orthodoxy - in the sense that it was the last pronouncement and has never been retracted -
that "Madeleine is being held in a "Hellish Lair in the Lawless Hinterland within 10 miles of Praia da Luz".
But we are not going to look ! !

"That is the case for the Prosecution, Your Honour "

And they have paid ID for this.

So many days scheduled for the hearings so presumably there must be many more witnesses to be heard.

Onus is on claimants to prove their claims so would imagine at least another handful or two handful of people are going to be dragged to Court to savage the damage already done. It's do or die stage that they cant afford to be complacent.

Just by the fact that a handful of third rate sub standards witnesses appeared for the first two days proves their desperation .
Any Tom Dick & Harry willing to nod their head will be dragged there for purpose.

Would imagine those closest to them will be left to the penultimate stage. Until the usual protagonists like Jon Corner, Michael Wright, Ed Smethurst, Trish Cameron, Philemona, John Mccann, Grandma Healy, Brian Kennedy, JK Rowlings, Sir Richard Branson, and the POPE stick their nose in for the Mccanns there wont be any final curtain call.
For their case to carry weight they would need someone from the law enforcement and/ior judiciary to counter contents in Amaral's book. Else they stand no chance.

They are clutching at straw and wont go down without a good fight.
If they were on a winning streak, all these peripheral characters wont have to be dragged in to pop them up.

Team Amaral, the side of the TRUTH, wont need as many witnesses because the TRUTH speaks for itself, no need for over explaining.

by Casey5 17.09.13 20:36

Are they allowed an infinite number of witnesses or is their a limit?

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 21:46

Casey5 wrote:Are they allowed an infinite number of witnesses or is their a limit?

My reading of it was
2 days Plaintiffs
2 days respondents
1 day final arguments
reserved judgement

Hence the dates we were given.
Courts DO try to make life possible, if not easy, for witnesses. So they set out the procedures and approximate time limits on actions, and stick to them.
We knew in advance exactly how long TB's case was going to take. This is no different.
The judge has read all the documents already, and can prolong or shorten anything which is boring, or interesting.
Which is why I think we may find the Plaintiffs' case may already be at an end.

So , Tragically no Philomena, sadly no John, no Pope, just the rag-tag of nobodies who have mucked it all up for them so far.

Whether KM herself will attend the next session will be VERY interesting.
How can she NOT
But how can she ?

And who will be there for the final decision, when the judge hand down not only the verdict, but spells out in graphic terms WHY she arrived at the decision she did.
Specifically saying she did not accept this evidence, but did accept that.
This is normal in a judgment in civil proceedings, and they would be well advised to recognise this.
Some of their friends and main witnesses may be destroyed in the process.

(Kate You might be well advised to get a sick note from your GP.)

by russiandoll 17.09.13 21:53

Anyone on the forum know anything about court procedures in civil cases over there? I have read some x examination of witnesses, but some not made where I would have expected it, unless not reported , am a little confused re this issue. There were a few things waiting to be challenged and I thought a lawyer for GA or the others would have pounced on them..

by **PeterMac** 17.09.13 22:14

russiandoll wrote:Anyone on the forum know anything about court procedures in civil cases over there? I have read some x examination of witnesses, but some not made where I would have expected it, unless not reported , am a little confused re this issue. There were a few things waiting to be challenged and I thought a lawyer for GA or the others would have pounced on them..

I do not know about Portuguese legal procedures.

BUT sometimes a lawyer gains more advantage by NOT asking a question, than by asking one.
This is an elaborate game. Leaving a patently stupid remark hanging in the air lets you refer to it in your final speech.

If you pounce on it, you may then find that the witness can explain it was a mistake, mis-understood, an error, or whatever . . and you have lost your point.

There is a quote somewhere about a Client who remonstrated with his barrister over his fee, when he had asked only one question of the opposition during a hearing.
The barrister replied, "You did not pay me for the question I asked. You paid me for all the questions I did NOT ask."

I see this at work here.
The "witnesses" have shown themselves to be vacuous, void, stupid, irrelevant, devoid of facts, full of self-importance, and utterly useless for the purpose of proving the case.
Why waste time on them.
Two or three questions have been sufficient.

by Guest 17.09.13 22:25

I expect time comes into it too. ID questions the witness, but then we have 3 different sets of lawyers asking questions on the other side, they may be limited to only a couple of questions each, otherwise proceedings could stretch on and on, and there are only a couple of days for each side to give their evidence.

by russiandoll 17.09.13 22:59

It probably is a matter of strategy, because there is no way on this earth that a decent lawyer would not pick up on the blunders we have heard about so far. To jump in with a x exam for example on the EL saw the book in bookshops issue would have allowed her to backtrack and say she meant bookshops in Europe, seen on her travels, apologies, she should have taken better note of the question being specific to the UK.
As it stands, EL has answered a clear q about the book's availability in the UK by saying she has seen it in bookshops [ plural] in the UK.

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 5:35

Casey5 wrote:Are they allowed an infinite number of witnesses or is their a limit?

Whatever it be, the submitted list can't be changed. So, it's limited to those on the list.

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 5:53

PeterMac wrote:
Casey5 wrote:Are they allowed an infinite number of witnesses or is their a limit?
My reading of it was
2 days Plaintiffs
2 days respondents
1 day final arguments
reserved judgement

But I suppose the schedule will be extended due to the abrupt departure of the Judge.
Not all witnesses on Mccanns side are heard. Grandma Healy dragged there hasn't get her chance yet!
OK, not the Pope...... but one can bet the likes of Jon Corner and Michael Wright, close allies of the Mccanns, are going to be there. How can they NOT?

Hence the dates we were given.
Courts DO try to make life possible, if not easy, for witnesses. So they set out the procedures and approximate time limits on actions, and stick to them.
We knew in advance exactly how long TB's case was going to take. This is no different.
The judge has read all the documents already, and can prolong or shorten anything which is boring, or interesting.
Which is why I think we may find the Plaintiffs' case may already be at an end.

So , Tragically no Philomena, sadly no John, no Pope, just the rag-tag of nobodies who have mucked it all up for them so far.

Whether KM herself will attend the next session will be VERY interesting.
How can she NOT
But how can she ?

HEE HEE ....all of her own doing.........
She's a control freak, so maybe she WILL...
just for the process while witnesses are heard...
But definitely NOT for the verdict.

And who will be there for the final decision, when the judge hand down not only the verdict, but spells out in graphic terms WHY she arrived at the decision she did.
Specifically saying she did not accept this evidence, but did accept that.
This is normal in a judgment in civil proceedings, and they would be well advised to recognise this.
Some of their friends and main witnesses may be destroyed in the process.

That would be the McCurse effect....

(Kate You might be well advised to get a sick note from your GP.)

She might need restraining to prevent her lashing out in the media at the unfairness of it all.
Predictably she'll (via the pinkcreature) say it's the anomalies of the Portuguese Judiciary system, the fat bungling cop was just lying but not proven. [/quote]

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 6:10

PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Anyone on the forum know anything about court procedures in civil cases over there? I have read some x examination of witnesses, but some not made where I would have expected it, unless not reported , am a little confused re this issue. There were a few things waiting to be challenged and I thought a lawyer for GA or the others would have pounced on them..
I do not know about Portuguese legal procedures.

BUT sometimes a lawyer gains more advantage by NOT asking a question, than by asking one.
This is an elaborate game. Leaving a patently stupid remark hanging in the air lets you refer to it in your final speech.

If you pounce on it, you may then find that the witness can explain it was a mistake, mis-understood, an error, or whatever . . and you have lost your point.

There is a quote somewhere about a Client who remonstrated with his barrister over his fee, when he had asked only one question of the opposition during a hearing.
The barrister replied, "You did not pay me for the question I asked. You paid me for all the questions I did NOT ask."

I see this at work here.
The "witnesses" have shown themselves to be vacuous, void, stupid, irrelevant, devoid of facts, full of self-importance, and utterly useless for the purpose of proving the case.
Why waste time on them.
Two or three questions have been sufficient.

It's evident that Defence lawyers (I notice especially Amaral's lawyer) asked only pertinent questions, to the point, kept it short and concise,
And selective answers of the witnesses meeting the purpose are going to be effectively used for closing summary.

The Publishing Company side lawyer's embedded multiple questions within one question, which isn't ideal, because you can;t know which point the answer addressed especially if the answer is vague. Multiple questions within one confuses the witness. Witnesses wont know which to answer first, probably not remembering them all and not remembering the sequence of them to address them adequately.

by Nina 18.09.13 9:38

10. The 10 kms radius from PdL where the hellish lair is according to DE, where Madeleine is being kept. Why 10 ?

by jeanmonroe 18.09.13 11:14

Nina wrote:10. The 10 kms radius from PdL where the hellish lair is according to DE, where Madeleine is being kept. Why 10 ?

Because Dave ran out of fingers and thumbs?

by plebgate 18.09.13 16:13

jeanmonroe wrote:
Nina wrote:10. The 10 kms radius from PdL where the hellish lair is according to DE, where Madeleine is being kept. Why 10 ?
Because Dave ran out of fingers and thumbs?

Or maybe because he thought it was well within the capability of both parents to run that distance looking for their beautiful little girl. They do not appear to have done so although they have run marathons and taken part in a triathalon in UK.

Log in for more topics