LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Hicks wrote:

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.

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.

candyfloss wrote:

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.

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"

candyfloss wrote:martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 1m
#madeleine Loach: TV documentary later made things worse because more than 2 million people watched it.

tasprin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

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.

Yes she did, Candyfloss

Telegraph

Isabel Duarte, lawyer for the McCanns said she would fight to get Mr Amaral's petition for a closed hearing rejected.

"He doesn't have a case," she told The Daily Telegraph outside court. "I am confident that we can win this point."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10304279/Ex-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-seeks-to-ban-media-from-1m-libel-trial.html

candyfloss wrote:martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt 1m
#madeleine Loach: TV documentary later made things worse because more than 2 million people watched it.

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

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.

Yes she did, Candyfloss

Telegraph

Isabel Duarte, lawyer for the McCanns said she would fight to get Mr Amaral's petition for a closed hearing rejected.

"He doesn't have a case," she told The Daily Telegraph outside court. "I am confident that we can win this point."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10304279/Ex-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-seeks-to-ban-media-from-1m-libel-trial.html

What an ill-advised assertion! 

Dr Amaral after all only sought to guard Madeleines privacy/interests by advocating not having all witness material unchecked exposed to all and sundry. He's a doctor of Law, very well placed to judge what would have been in a living Maddies best interests. 

How very very odd for mistress Isabel then, to state that you are confident of 'winning' the full publicity for potentially negative information about a living child and on your fragile client. 

Negative? Look no further: as witnessed by the bevy of own goals from mother Hubbard on day One

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

tiny wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

I wouldn't trust brunty,he,s a McCann fan

russiandoll wrote:Come on GA lawyer : Emma Loach directed a documentary without facts, altering the Smith sighting to show a child carried across a man's arms just as in JT sighting, when Mr Smith unequivocally said that the child was carried vertically, head resting on man's shoulder.

 Bloody hell.....you could not make this up.

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

ShuBob wrote:

tiny wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

I wouldn't trust brunty,he,s a McCann fan

Isn't it very sad that there's hardly any UK journalist one can trust with the truth?

ShuBob wrote:

tiny wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

I wouldn't trust brunty,he,s a McCann fan

Isn't it very sad that there's hardly any UK journalist one can trust with the truth?

Woofer wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

tiny wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Is there a possibility the McCanns' witnesses weren't cross-examined or is Brunty being devious by only reporting one side of the story?

I wouldn't trust brunty,he,s a McCann fan

Isn't it very sad that there's hardly any UK journalist one can trust with the truth?

YES VERY VERY SAD - I`m so ashamed of my own country these days.