Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by ShuBob 12.09.13 14:42

Portia wrote:In a case when one of either parties in litigation requests for the case to be heard behind closed doors, a/o with the media excluded, it is usual for the Court to ask for the other sides opinion on that.

If the other party also wants it heard behind closed doors, the Court will most likely order doors closed.

If the other party disagrees however, chances are there will be public hearings.

This raises the question, why the McCs would be so ill advised as to reject the cloak of deniability, both regarding their own witnesses as re Dr Amarals.

All very unusual, from a legal point of view IMO

I was thinking the same Portia $i don\'t know$

by tiny 12.09.13 14:42

candyfloss wrote:martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 2m
#madeleine Hubbard: actors who played Kate and Gerry in Portuguese documentary portrayed them after M vanished as "crazy, heavy drinkers"

Not wrong there,wasnt it 14 bottles of wine they drank

by Guest 12.09.13 14:46

candyfloss wrote:martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 2m
#madeleine Hubbard: actors who played Kate and Gerry in Portuguese documentary portrayed them after M vanished as "crazy, heavy drinkers"

Picking up a man lying in the street somewhere, Kate DID remark snidely: we've all been there, haven't we? Or words to that effect.

That could mean only two things:

a. she had been lying in the street somewhere;
b. she had been lying drunk in a street somewhere;

oh, and:

c. she had been drunk, period.

Why be so coy about it now?

by Cristobell 12.09.13 14:48

sallypelt wrote:Live on SKY News: Kate isn't here YET

I think he said Kate's mother isn't here yet Sally.

Well what a bizarre report that was, I've really no idea what the point of it was. They must have done a longer interview with Isabel than that so why clip it to a few seconds of her talking about Amaral hiding his money.

Why employ a 28k a year spokesman who has naff all to say when you need him most?

Oerr, I am squirming as we watch this unfold. I almost feel sorry for Kate, but perhaps we are beginning to see the driving force behind the continued madness. No matter what we think of Kate, it has taken some guts to go out there and face what could have been a hostile crowd. If will be interesting to see if she gives an interview on the steps of the Court at the end of day?

by jozi 12.09.13 14:51

[quote="tiny"][quote="candyfloss"]martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 2m
have to swear on the

Why is Mrs Hubbard there on the stand giving her report of the devastation of the Mcs after said book release ? Why is Mr Hubbard not there giving evidence....Oh I forgot do they have to swear on the Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth !!!

by tasprin 12.09.13 14:54

candyfloss wrote:martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 2m
#madeleine Hubbard: actors who played Kate and Gerry in Portuguese documentary portrayed them after M vanished as "crazy, heavy drinkers"

Not true. It portrayed them as a group of adults enjoying a night out, chatting and drinking, as their children lay asleep, unsupervised and out of sight, in a poorly lit apartment building on a street corner, located outside the gated complex where the Tapas group were dining. .And if the Tapas 9s own evidence is to be believed that is what happened. The documentary portrayed the evenings events as told by the them.

by Newintown 12.09.13 14:54

Cristobell wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Live on SKY News: Kate isn't here YET
I think he said Kate's mother isn't here yet Sally.

Well what a bizarre report that was, I've really no idea what the point of it was. They must have done a longer interview with Isabel than that so why clip it to a few seconds of her talking about Amaral hiding his money.

Why employ a 28k a year spokesman who has naff all to say when you need him most?

Oerr, I am squirming as we watch this unfold. I almost feel sorry for Kate, but perhaps we are beginning to see the driving force behind the continued madness. No matter what we think of Kate, it has taken some guts to go out there and face what could have been a hostile crowd. If will be interesting to see if she gives an interview on the steps of the Court at the end of day?

Well don't, think about what she and her vanished other half have done to GA and his family instead, and to Madeleine and to the twins. She and GM have brought this whole thing upon themselves through their sheer hatred of GA as he was probably very near to exposing all their lies; and their sheer greed for more and more money, if she had to face a hostile crowd, so be it. If she wins she will be £1m better off and will be laughing all the way to the bank, with ill gotten gains. She will not lose any sleep over GA, after all she didn't lose any sleep over Madeleine.

by Woofer 12.09.13 15:00

Newintown wrote:
Penfold wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Live on SKY News: Kate isn't here YET
Brunty said that Kate's mother wasn't here yet.

And in answer to newintown - SR Amaral was trying to exclude the press -he had no objection to the public being admitted - according to Brunty.
Thanks. I know Joana is a friend of GA but I thought the Court may have been closed to outsiders (besides chosen press) if there was any chance that any previously unknown facts that may come out, and could get into the public domain, could jeopardise the SY & PJ investigations.

Joana doesn`t seem to be blogging on this case anymore - she hasn`t tweeted about this case since the spring or written anything on her website for months, although Astro has. Had wondered whether she`s decided to opt out.

by Woofer 12.09.13 15:03

candyfloss wrote:Yep, this is what Susan Hubbard did say. You couldn't make it up could you, he was co-ordinator of the investigation FGS

martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 22s
#madeleine Mrs Hubbard said McCanns could not believe Mr Amaral was allowed to write his book "without any facts."

This must be the gem of the century.
And I couldn`t believe that Kate McCann was allowed to write `madeleine` without any facts - or spout to the world for 6 years that she was abducted without any facts.

by Newintown 12.09.13 15:08

Woofer wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Penfold wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Live on SKY News: Kate isn't here YET
Brunty said that Kate's mother wasn't here yet.

And in answer to newintown - SR Amaral was trying to exclude the press -he had no objection to the public being admitted - according to Brunty.
Thanks. I know Joana is a friend of GA but I thought the Court may have been closed to outsiders (besides chosen press) if there was any chance that any previously unknown facts that may come out, and could get into the public domain, could jeopardise the SY & PJ investigations.
Joana doesn`t seem to be blogging on this case anymore - she hasn`t tweeted about this case since the spring or written anything on her website for months, although Astro has. Had wondered whether she`s decided to opt out.

She did once say that she would only blog when she had something of interest to say as she wanted to get her life back and had a lot of other things that she needed to do. Perhaps family matters have overtaken her, although recent posts have been put up, but she may have someone else helping out.

by Woofer 12.09.13 15:12

Newintown - thanks, I hadn`t heard that.
Lets hope we hear something from her during this trial.

by Ayniia 12.09.13 15:14

Woofer wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Yep, this is what Susan Hubbard did say. You couldn't make it up could you, he was co-ordinator of the investigation FGS

martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 22s
#madeleine Mrs Hubbard said McCanns could not believe Mr Amaral was allowed to write his book "without any facts."
This must be the gem of the century.
And I couldn`t believe that Kate McCann was allowed to write `madeleine` without any facts - or spout to the world for 6 years that she was abducted without any facts.

Spot on!!! high5

by Guest 12.09.13 15:14

From Pat Brown....

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 1m
Prayers & best wishes for Gonçalo Amaral as he stands for truth & free speech at the trial in Portugal today. #mccann http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mccanns-libel-trial-madeleine-mccanns-2268027 …

by Woofer 12.09.13 15:15

Can anyone tell me is this being heard by just one judge? If so, anyone know who the judge is?

Surely one thing that`s certain is that the judge would have read The Truth of the Lie and also seen the documentaries the McCanns are complaining about.

by Guest 12.09.13 15:16

Mari Welzel ‏@umweltbuerger 1m
"Libel Diary–early results from the truth machine.. The Machine is paying out already " John Blacksmith http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/ #McCann T&J4M

by jeanmonroe 12.09.13 15:22

Woofer wrote:Can anyone tell me is this being heard by just one judge? If so, anyone know who the judge is?

Surely one thing that`s certain is that the judge would have read The Truth of the Lie and also seen the documentaries the McCanns are complaining about.

He would also have seen the McCanns mockumentary, for comparison, and in Gerry's own words muttered to himself 'things just don't stack up'

by Guest 12.09.13 15:22

I would have expected Mrs Hubbard to have had hours and hours of coaching on what to say and what not to say.

martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 10m

#madeleine Hubbard: actors who played Kate and Gerry in Portuguese documentary portrayed them after M vanished as "crazy, heavy drinkers"

It's as if she is deliberately blowing the McCann case out of the water. Whose side is she on again?

by Newintown 12.09.13 15:24

Woofer wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Yep, this is what Susan Hubbard did say. You couldn't make it up could you, he was co-ordinator of the investigation FGS

martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 22s
#madeleine Mrs Hubbard said McCanns could not believe Mr Amaral was allowed to write his book "without any facts."
This must be the gem of the century.
And I couldn`t believe that Kate McCann was allowed to write `madeleine` without any facts - or spout to the world for 6 years that she was abducted without any facts.

Yes, and to make about £4m or more maybe without any concrete proof so far that an abduction ever took place.

by Guest 12.09.13 15:31

nearly 1,300 comments so far...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#OXemo1t

by Guest 12.09.13 15:36

candyfloss wrote:From Pat Brown....

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 1m
Prayers & best wishes for Gonçalo Amaral as he stands for truth & free speech at the trial in Portugal today. #mccann http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mccanns-libel-trial-madeleine-mccanns-2268027 …

***
ON PAT'S FACEBOOK PAGE: "He doesn't have a case," says Isabel Duarte. Ms. Duarte, Mr. Amaral doesn't have to have a case, the McCanns do.

by aiyoyo 12.09.13 15:43

Portia wrote:In a case when one of either parties in litigation requests for the case to be heard behind closed doors, a/o with the media excluded, it is usual for the Court to ask for the other sides opinion on that.

If the other party also wants it heard behind closed doors, the Court will most likely order doors closed.

If the other party disagrees however, chances are there will be public hearings.

This raises the question, why the McCs would be so ill advised as to reject the cloak of deniability, both regarding their own witnesses as re Dr Amarals.

All very unusual, from a legal point of view IMO

Say, if they knew their chances are low, then they know bad or adverse press now will just play into their hands for future use against another trial.

by Hicks 12.09.13 15:45

Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Live on SKY News: Kate isn't here YET
I think he said Kate's mother isn't here yet Sally.

Well what a bizarre report that was, I've really no idea what the point of it was. They must have done a longer interview with Isabel than that so why clip it to a few seconds of her talking about Amaral hiding his money.

Why employ a 28k a year spokesman who has naff all to say when you need him most?

Oerr, I am squirming as we watch this unfold. I almost feel sorry for Kate, but perhaps we are beginning to see the driving force behind the continued madness. No matter what we think of Kate, it has taken some guts to go out there and face what could have been a hostile crowd. If will be interesting to see if she gives an interview on the steps of the Court at the end of day?
Well don't, think about what she and her vanished other half have done to GA and his family instead, and to Madeleine and to the twins. She and GM have brought this whole thing upon themselves through their sheer hatred of GA as he was probably very near to exposing all their lies; and their sheer greed for more and more money, if she had to face a hostile crowd, so be it. If she wins she will be £1m better off and will be laughing all the way to the bank, with ill gotten gains. She will not lose any sleep over GA, after all she didn't lose any sleep over Madeleine.

Quite newintown, Mr Amaral does not look well.

I feel sorry for GM, he has lost so much by just trying to do his job led only by the evidence that confronted him.

I am praying that he will win this trial and those money grabbers will leave empty handed.

BTW, does anyone else think it strange that Mrs McCann's other half is not there in Portugal to hold her hand?
It is reported that GM has work commitments-really? would nobody cover for him in light of what's going on now? Also, he has to look after the twins, it has never bothered the MC'S before leaving them with others.

by tasprin 12.09.13 15:48

aiyoyo wrote:
Portia wrote:In a case when one of either parties in litigation requests for the case to be heard behind closed doors, a/o with the media excluded, it is usual for the Court to ask for the other sides opinion on that.

If the other party also wants it heard behind closed doors, the Court will most likely order doors closed.

If the other party disagrees however, chances are there will be public hearings.

This raises the question, why the McCs would be so ill advised as to reject the cloak of deniability, both regarding their own witnesses as re Dr Amarals.

All very unusual, from a legal point of view IMO
Say, if they knew their chances are low, then they know bad or adverse press now will just play into their hands for future use against another trial.

Yes it's odd that Duarte said she would fight Amaral's request for a closed court when she knows Scotland Yard (really?) advised them to stay at home and avoid a media circus. (I think they love a good old media circus. As long as it's on their terms, they wouldn't miss it for the world)

by tiny 12.09.13 15:50

Yes I think it,s strange g mccann is not there,but could be a pr stunt to make it look like k is having to face Mr Amaral on her own without any family with her

by Guest 12.09.13 15:55

tasprin wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Portia wrote:In a case when one of either parties in litigation requests for the case to be heard behind closed doors, a/o with the media excluded, it is usual for the Court to ask for the other sides opinion on that.

If the other party also wants it heard behind closed doors, the Court will most likely order doors closed.

If the other party disagrees however, chances are there will be public hearings.

This raises the question, why the McCs would be so ill advised as to reject the cloak of deniability, both regarding their own witnesses as re Dr Amarals.

All very unusual, from a legal point of view IMO
Say, if they knew their chances are low, then they know bad or adverse press now will just play into their hands for future use against another trial.

Yes it's odd that Duarte said she would fight Amaral's request for a closed court when she knows Scotland Yard (really?) advised them to stay at home and avoid a media circus. (I think they love a good old media circus. As long as it's on their terms, they wouldn't miss it for the world)

Did she actually say she would fight the request? Or did the Judge decide to allow the media and turn down Mr Amaral's request.

Log in for more topics