Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by stillsloppingout 17.09.13 22:59

Harriet94 wrote:Thanks I'll try again. I no longer have any faith in UK documentary makers portraying the truth, so I think Jeremy Vines effort on Thursday will be of interest. I will also be interested know how Emma Loach arrived at her 'version' of the smith sighting and what happened to the actress who turned up expecting to portray Kate, if of course there was one.

What is Jeremy Vine doing on Thursday ? is he appearing as a witness ? or is he having a debate on his show ?

by Guest 17.09.13 23:00

Have a look at the Srien Dewani topic, SSO.

We are a little off topic here!

by sallypelt 17.09.13 23:32

Madeleine McCann's parents seem afraid of something

Will an unpleasant truth come out in the search for Madeleine McCann? It seems that this is something that her parents may fear, judging by their reaction to a book containing claims made by Goncalo Amaral. Amaral famously led the original investigation into Maddie's mysterious disappearance the better half of a decade ago. They are reportedly doing their best to "shield their twins" from the things that are said within this book. Could that be because they don't want the children to be subject to what might be the truth? Certainly these two children have been groomed throughout the years to believe their parents' shaky version of the events that took place.
The truth of what happened to Maddie may never be known, but the evidence as it's known only indicates guilt when it comes to the child's parents. The mother has refused to answer questions since the night the girl vanished, and both of the parents have refused polygraph tests. Cadaver dogs have long incriminated this family as well. Nonetheless, the UK has protected them since they pretty much fled Portugal as suspects in the disappearance of their own little girl.
Hopefully SY investigators in Portugal uncover the actual truth in this case -- and hopefully they have the honesty and common decency to do the right thing when that time comes instead of the thing that saves face after flubbing up this case for so many years.
Click here to read more by Chelsea Hoffman or fan her Facebook page to follow her latest projects. If you’re interested in learning about criminal profiling, missing persons or serial killers, consider enrolling in the Crime Studies class taught by crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15558783-madeleine-mccanns-parents-seem-afraid-of-something

by listener 17.09.13 23:38

Kyle/Vine - Both in the same box (IMO) big grin

edit - and LK got black-balled big grin

(sorry mods - no disruption meant - couldn't help it!)

by ShuBob 18.09.13 0:50

From the link Get'Em posted on the previous page:

Emma Loach, the daughter of film director Ken Loach, also appeared as a witness on the first day of the civil trial after befriending the couple while making a documentary about them. She said that in the months after publication of the book the McCanns were swamped by “a massive tidal wave of lies”.

“He was giving interviews and launching his book all over Europe. This is a book that was written in a comfortable and easy style that took one on an emotional journey and then gave simple answers that made a reader feel better about the case,” she said.

When are these people going to understand that generally the truth isn't convoluted and is simple to digest given the facts? Ms Loach should be asking herself why Amaral's thesis is seemingly more believable than the McCanns.

by marconi 18.09.13 1:52

Cristobell wrote:
susible wrote:
Will they rely on DI Redwood's assertion that they were not involved? Indeed, will he appear and state that on oath.
I'm not sure that Redwood asserted that the parents were not involved, just that they were not on the list of 38 persons of interest. I do not honestly believe that the SY investigation is over-looking them entirely, just that they know what they are up against, as the PJ found to their cost, the evidence required to secure a conviction was just not there...circumstantial evidence perhaps, but nothing solid.

No, I think that SY may well be playing a very clever game inasmuch that they are going about it Sherlock Holmes style, eliminate absolutely everything else, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to us who post on the forums, so that there can be no doubt that when the investigation goes in, what must be the inevitable direction of the parents, there can be no accusations that they were influenced by the alleged "shambolic" investigation co-ordinated by a "disgraced" police officer and that the public can then have their eyes well and truly opened to the lies, deception, contradictions and greed of the parents.
I should have said 'words to that effect'. I think the absence of the tapas group in Lisbon speaks volumes about the way in which the investigation is going.

I agree SY may be playing a very clever game. With every tv appearance and news item, the McCanns are digging themselves in deeper and deeper. This farcical libel trial being a good example.

Completely agree, Cristobell, a very clever game of the Yard's. Police never tell important things, they keep them secret. The Tapas are scared to death that's why they never show up. But they certainly will, they will have no choice. When did the Yard go to Algarve, August or September? Because the answer will come from there, where the body is hidden. The Yard will take the McCanns to Algarve, forcing them pointing the grave.
Perpetrators are obliged to show where their victims are buried or hidden. Imo Maddie is near the church or even in the church. Or perhaps in a house, near the church. We never heard if there was sand in the boot of the car, maybe with Maddie's DNA or with signs of body liquid.I also wonder if there were fibres of the pink blanket in the boot of the car. It would be a proof. May the 4th, the PJ were checking on 5a, including clothes . I believe they took pictures of every single one of them : did they miss some of Maddie's clothes later on, when they checked on their house? A dress, socks, underwear? A toy?

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 1:52

ShuBob wrote:From the link Get'Em posted on the previous page:

Emma Loach, the daughter of film director Ken Loach, also appeared as a witness on the first day of the civil trial after befriending the couple while making a documentary about them. She said that in the months after publication of the book the McCanns were swamped by “a massive tidal wave of lies”.

“He was giving interviews and launching his book all over Europe. This is a book that was written in a comfortable and easy style that took one on an emotional journey and then gave simple answers that made a reader feel better about the case,” she said.
When are these people going to understand that generally the truth isn't convoluted and is simple to digest given the facts? Ms Loach should be asking herself why Amaral's thesis is seemingly more believable than the McCanns.

She's done such a good job of promoting "Truth of the Lie" she could be mistaken as Dr. Goncalo Amaral's paid PR
She concedes the book makes reader feel "BETTER" about the case? If truth makes people feel better, so be it, no problem is there?

The whole bunch tries too hard to impress upon the Court their subjective opinion of Mccanns' poor emotional health. Pathetic really if not so laughable that amateurs are allowed to testify on Claimants' serious claim of mental, emotional, and psychological health malfunction.
Of all people, you would expect the solicitor and psychologist to at least apprise themselves of Mccanns' affidavit beforehand before going to court to give their professional opinion and not simply go on vague understanding of the Claimants' charges.

The paradox is if the mccanns were to go to the medical experts in the field to get themselves certified as maniac depressive, not able to function, generally mentally unstable, then Gerry risks losing his job; and Kate will be in no state to continue to carry out her Fund raising campaign.
Wouldn't that be a twisted irony?

by lj 18.09.13 2:50

susible wrote:
lj wrote:
susible wrote:
lj wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Portia wrote:Team AR-SY are probably working their butts off to find dr Amarals book in one (= 1) UK bookstore, just for their enlightenment
Yeah, they could spend the £6,228 they received today to 'search' for Madeleine on taxi's for the boys to search those lawless bookshops!
Who was that generous?
The UK tax payer!
Ah, I get it, the SY moneypit.

For a moment I thought the "fund" was receiving that.

Again I have only 14 pages now in the libel trial discussion, while yesterday we were up to over a hundred?? Is someone stealing pages??
Here's the link to the first 100 pages LJ
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7738-libel-trial-discussion-here-title-changed-from-kate-in-lisbon

ThX!!

by suzyjohnson 18.09.13 3:28

Regarding the Tapas friends, I don't think most of them are relevant to proceedings in Lisbon, since 2007 they appear to have distanced themselves as far as possible from the McCanns, and so probably would not be able to comment on the effects of Amaral's book on McCanns in late 2008. In any case, it seems to be only the Paynes who knew the McCanns really well prior to the PdL holiday, and perhaps the are the only ones who have seen the McCanns on a regular basis since then.

I've seen one or two comments suggesting the McCanns have been short of witnesses to appear on their behalf in Lisbon, but it crossed my mind that perhaps the witnesses who have attended have been asked precisely because they are not in the McCanns company very often. It's possible that those who know them better, including the Tapas friends, stand a much greater risk of saying the wrong thing in court.

by lj 18.09.13 5:35

susible wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
susible wrote:LJ, I think that the admin have split the thread as it was over 100 pages long...the start of the thread up to page 100 has now been locked but is still on the forum
It is an automatic thing done by Forumotion, thread locks on 100 pages and reopens new one, nothing to do with admin or mods.
Ahh right, obviously I don't run a Forumotion forum so had no idea that happened, I just assumed it was admin. It's a good thing though, 100+ pages can be mighty difficult to trawl through

Thank you candyfloss and susible. roses

by Ribisl 18.09.13 6:53

suzyjohnson wrote:Regarding the Tapas friends, I don't think most of them are relevant to proceedings in Lisbon, since 2007 they appear to have distanced themselves as far as possible from the McCanns, and so probably would not be able to comment on the effects of Amaral's book on McCanns in late 2008. In any case, it seems to be only the Paynes who knew the McCanns really well prior to the PdL holiday, and perhaps the are the only ones who have seen the McCanns on a regular basis since then.

I've seen one or two comments suggesting the McCanns have been short of witnesses to appear on their behalf in Lisbon, but it crossed my mind that perhaps the witnesses who have attended have been asked precisely because they are not in the McCanns company very often. It's possible that those who know them better, including the Tapas friends, stand a much greater risk of saying the wrong thing in court.

I think you have a good point. They need witnesses who can be seen as sufficiently independent which wouldn't be the case with the T7, especially in view of their well known 'pact' with the McCanns.

by **tigger** 18.09.13 7:08

Lorraine Kelly would be the obvious choice, as would Lazzeri - although it would be a bit hard on the Lisbon court.
Sycophants such as these have led the McCanns to believe they are untouchable.

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 7:35

tigger wrote:Lorraine Kelly would be the obvious choice, as would Lazzeri - although it would be a bit hard on the Lisbon court.
Sycophants such as these have led the McCanns to believe they are untouchable.

You would think Lorraine Kelly is obvious choice for witness, but NO she's avoiding them like plague when they found themselves in this dire situation.
IF the shit hits the fan, she's going to do a 180 degree switch around.......

by Trainer 18.09.13 7:49

To win this one would mean revelling to much information that could lead to loosing the big one.
Hence witness have been nobody's. SYard would love to hear what the tapas are willing to state as the truth.
I think they plan to throw this hand and keep any aces for the main game.

by Guest 18.09.13 7:56

Trainer wrote:To win this one would mean revelling to much information that could lead to loosing the big one.
Hence witness have been nobody's. SYard would love to hear what the tapas are willing to state as the truth.
I think they plan to throw this hand and keep any aces for the main game.

I agree

by Guest 18.09.13 8:32

Cristobell wrote:
Will they rely on DI Redwood's assertion that they were not involved? Indeed, will he appear and state that on oath. That would clinch it.

Unless I've misunderstood, Mr Amaral has to prove that his book is based on the facts that were available to him at the time of publishing and that his opinions stem from those facts.

DI Redwood's knowledge comes from the Scotland Yard review and investigation with the 195 new leads - leads that were not available to Mr Amaral. His assertions would not be relevant to this case.

by **PeterMac** 18.09.13 9:09

tigger wrote:Lorraine Kelly would be the obvious choice, as would Lazzeri - although it would be a bit hard on the Lisbon court.
Sycophants such as these have led the McCanns to believe they are untouchable.

Lazzeri has such a tenuous grasp, even of the official story, that she would blow the whole thing out of the water.
A long time ago I had an email exchange with her where it became clear she had confused the "broken' shutters in the parents' room two days before with the shutters in the children's room.
She is a tabloid journalist, and clearly has the brain to match.

by **PeterMac** 18.09.13 9:14

ShuBob wrote:
When are these people going to understand that generally the truth isn't convoluted and is simple to digest given the facts? Ms Loach should be asking herself why Amaral's thesis is seemingly more believable than the McCanns.

Do we remember this, from a long time ago. I can't remember who wrote it.

One great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" - is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony".
Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident".
Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated:

"We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targetted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

by russiandoll 18.09.13 9:17

If I recall correctly, that precise and quite wonderful comment was posted by the stripey, bouncing one from Winnie the Pooh !

by gbwales 18.09.13 9:19

"This is a book that was written in a comfortable and easy style that took one on an emotional journey and then gave simple answers that made a reader feel better about the case," she said.

Although I'd 100% disagree that it gives simple answers and makes one feel better about the case - it actually gives profoundly uncomfortable answers that make one feel queasy and angry - otherwise she sounds almost like she's doing the voice-over for an advert for the book!

The reasons it may be an 'easy' style are probably something to do with sticking to facts and logic as a basis for its opinion, and in not clinging to a theory which is the only one which appears to have no grounding in any evidence whatsoever.

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 9:29

Morning:gm:

Angus McBridge's testimony is on a new thread.

Another clueless one..........

by russiandoll 18.09.13 9:33

A similar situation from a teacher's viewpoint, listening to why I haven't got my homework Miss............

simple truth :                    "got up late and left it at home, I was in a rush ,Miss "

a simple truth but rare :       " the dog ate it Miss "

another simple truth :           " up late, forgot to do it, was too tired Miss "

and another :                      " too difficult, Miss "

or from adults :

truth, simple :                       " family matters" , " work issues "   " exhausted and forgot " , " exhausted and could not think straight "

the convoluted " TRUTH" which type always was good for a laugh in the staff-room and always from the youth not adult contingent :

" Miss, YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS MISS [!!!], but this is what happened Miss..... I got in from school and was really thirsty and hungry, so I had some food and drink and thought I'd do all my homework straight away to save time, I usually have a rest or watch tv first Miss...but last night my Mum had to go and see her best friend and was leaving me to mind the kids/ cook for us all/ and so I was busy Miss and I did it there and then and coz I had a drink and was a bit tired Miss coz I'd come in after a long walk home Miss I was clumsy Miss and the drink went all over my book Miss and so Mum said when she came home, she moaned at me Miss for being so stupid, she said I had better let it dry out. It is a mess Miss. all the pages are crinkled, the way my newspapers look on my paper round if it's raining, they looked like that Miss and Mum said I could only bring it in if it dried out ok or wrote it out again. Sorry Miss"

by which time I had my head in my hands........

by russiandoll 18.09.13 9:36

This is a book that was written in a comfortable and easy style that took one on an emotional journey and then gave simple answers that made a reader feel better about the case," she said.

If it took one on an emotional journey and made a reader feel better about the case, it can't be claimed that it had a wide readership then. big grin

by Guest 18.09.13 9:38

I don't think that it's possible for a McCann witness to be anything other than clueless, Aiyoyo.

Can there be anyone other than Emma Loach not to realise the delicious irony of linking the McCanns with the expression "a tidal wave of lies"?

A child psychologist who hasn't seen the twins since they were two.

Dave Edgar - no words needed.

Mother Hubbard - she must wish she'd stayed home and replenished her empty cupboard.

You really couldn't make it up.

by russiandoll 18.09.13 9:52

Mother Hubbard and her empty cupboard, that made me smile. And the tsunami of lies is BEYOND ironic.

You could almost feel sorry for them, but adults must face the consequences of their actions and sadly this is what happens once you take that first step on the weaving a tangled web train....

things did not take place as described on 3rd May, there would be no need for one untruth if they had, it really is that simple.

Log in for more topics