LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

tigger wrote:Alan Pike, MW trauma psychologist was on the job at 6 am on Saturday the 5th.
....he told us we seemed like model parents .. Alan was and remains a saviour.

From the book, chapter 7.

every line there's a gem eh?  'Model parents'?

I await with interest the cross-examination of Pike  

ShuBob wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

plebgate wrote:All they need now is for that man who made the youtube vid lifting the pillow through the window to see how easy it would have been to abduct Maddie in under a minute to turn up as a witness.

I am still laughing my butt of at that.

   

I haven't seen that video. Can you please link to it? Thanks  

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7709-one-minute-and-twenty-seconds

Thanks a lot NFWTD  

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity of the reenactment  

No way that video, words fail me...

marconi wrote:Alipio Ribeiro got away with the issue by saying he did not read the book neither saw the documentary.
  He is loyal to Amaral and to the PJ and it is possible that he left the tunnel already.

Very neat way of getting himself out of that situation.
He has seen the irrelevance of previous witnesses, and has no wish to support the McCanns against an old colleague, and possibly an old friend.
So he plays the perfect answer, and is thrown out as irrelevant.

Back to you ID.

ShuBob wrote:I await with interest the cross-examination of Pike  

"Don't tell him Pike". I apologise for finding this funny in such circumstances but I can't help myself. All you have to do when you watch this clip is substitute German for Portuguese and think of the arrogance of the McCann battle in a Portuguese court of law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk

Just to remember what Alipio said of GA dismissal of the case at 39mn

PeterMac wrote:

marconi wrote:Alipio Ribeiro got away with the issue by saying he did not read the book neither saw the documentary.
  He is loyal to Amaral and to the PJ and it is possible that he left the tunnel already.

Very neat way of getting himself out of that situation.
He has seen the irrelevance of previous witnesses, and has no wish to support the McCanns against an old colleague, and possibly an old friend.
So he plays the perfect answer, and is thrown out as irrelevant.

Back to you ID.

I think youre wrong mac
I haven't read the book

I haven't seen the documentary

30 secs

What did he say for the other nine and a half minutes...think outside the box man

tigger wrote:Alan Pike, MW trauma psychologist was on the job at 6 am on Saturday the 5th.
....he told us we seemed like model parents .. Alan was and remains a saviour.

From the book, chapter 7.

Why would Mark Warner have a trauma psychologist to hand, did they have a lot of traumas happening on their holiday complexes, one wonders.  I can understand them having their own doctor on call day or night for people staying on their complex, but not a trauma psychologist.  Very strange, or is that KM's vivid imagination again and hyping up Pike's job description in case he had to be rolled out for any future court actions the McCanns may have had in the pipeline.

How is Alan Pike the McCanns saviour, didn't he say he'd only seen the twins once?  His idea that the McCanns are model parents is off with the fairies, seeing as they'd just lost their daughter who had been left with her 2 younger siblings while K & G wined and dined some distance away.

It would be interesting if he was asked in the court by one of the lawyers if he did actually say that the McCanns were model parents, after all Kate McCann has put it in her book.

Sky News has the newspaper front pages review in a few minutes, caught a quick glimpse. Daily Express has this as main story, Maddy Mum suicidal or words to that effect.



 btw davel, I welcome an exchange with those of vastly differing opinions, but there is no need for either sarcasm or rudeness, both of which I have seen from you today.

 Please can you explain why a witness for the McCanns would come to support them and then claim not to have read or seen the very material which is at the crux of the libel claim?

Can a trauma psychologist differentiate between or pin point exactly what actually caused Kate`s angst? 

Was her horror caused by someone saying `nasty` things about her in a book OR

Was it caused because she`d been sussed?

russiandoll wrote:Sky News has the newspaper front pages review in a few minutes, caught a quick glimpse. Daily Express has this as main story, Maddy Mum suicidal or words to that effect.



 btw davel, I welcome an exchange with those of vastly differing opinions, but there is no need for either sarcasm or rudeness, both of which I have seen from you today.

 Please can you explain why a witness for the McCanns would come to support them and then claim not to have read or seen the very material which is at the crux of the libel claim?

Watching Sky press review. Anna Botting just said Kate McCann tried to take her own life when she was accused of covering up Madeleine's death. The MSM are unbelievably dishonest

It would be interesting if he was asked in the court by one of the lawyers if he did actually say that the McCanns were model parents, after all Kate McCann has put it in her book.

Amazing what a few extra grand will buy. The Notion of people acting in full truth in a courtroom is now firmly dead.

Was that Jerry Lawton the only person tweeting from the court today?  Cos he`s the numpty that was on the Nancy Grace show, say no more !

candyfloss wrote:Viv ‏@anotherviv 50m
The unanswered question of what happened to Madeleine #McCann at root of court battle http://portuguese-american-journal.com/lisbon-madeleine-mccanns-parents-e1-million-libel-action-portugal/ … via @PortAmerJournal

Extract from Len Port's article:

"The unanswered question of what happened to Madeleine is at the root of the McCanns vs Amaral libel hearing now underway in Lisbon.

With the hearing in recess for a few days, it is perhaps a good moment to reflect dispassionately on just how polarized public opinion is over the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance more than six years ago.

The question is not for the libel hearing to consider, of course, but this legal action once again highlights the fact that public opinion is broadly split into two camps.

The McCanns have always insisted their daughter was abducted. During the original investigation, the lead detective Gonçalo Amaral became convinced she died in the holiday apartment, that her body was secretly disposed of, and that the McCanns lied about it.

In the absence of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, both theories remain just that – theories. Broadly speaking, the mainstream media in the UK seem to have accepted abduction and are sympathetic to the McCanns. Internet forums dedicated to the subject are generally of the opposite view and are awash with criticisms of the McCanns. Defamation laws restrain the mainstream media. Not so the Internet.

Central to the present libel action is the book The Truth of the Lie in which Amaral sets out his considered conclusions. The McCanns argue that not only does the book defame them personally, but by influencing public opinion it has also hindered efforts to find Madeleine.

What is being contested is not only Amaral’s views, but his right to express them publicly. It is a freedom of expression issue.

It was inevitable that the libel case would further rally supporters on either side. Many strongly believe the McCanns have been shamefully treated. Many others equally strongly believe Amaral has similarly suffered"

On the face of it this would seem to be a reasonably measured appraisal of the current state of affairs and Mr Port has at least highlighted the fact that "the mainstream media in the UK seem to have accepted abduction and are sympathetic to the McCanns".

However, lest anyone view this article as evidence of a roughly equal division between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the McCanns, it should be remembered that a YouGov Poll commissioned by the Sunday Times back in September 2007 showed that:
"48% of the British public believed Madeleine's parents may have been responsible for her death and only 20% believe they are completely innocent".

Despite publication of Doctor Amaral's book in late 2008 and the advent of numerous website purporting to seek justice for Madeleine, I very much doubt that a similar poll commissioned today would produce a significantly different result.

I'm therefore hardpressed to believe that this publication which, contrary to Ms Loach's assertion, is unavailable for purchase from UK retailers, can be said to have 'influenced public opinion' against the McCanns or 'hindered efforts to find Madeleine".

Further, given the prior judgement of the appellant (Appeals) Court in this matter which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Portugal, I'm at a loss to understand why this trial is proceeding.

Please can someone kindly explain the difference between the 2 statements below for the dense ones on twitter who are going on and on and on........about the alleged contradiction between GA statement below and his lawyer saying that people don't know if Maddie is dead or alive.

  WHAT I KNOW TELLS ME THAT MADDIE IS DEAD [ statement made by GA]

   being according to the twitter pros, the same as

   I KNOW THAT MADDIE IS DEAD.
 

Its possible that the MSM are exposing and building the McCanns up so big and so high they will then have FAR, FAR FURTHER to fall when the time comes.

russiandoll wrote:Please can someone kindly explain the difference between the 2 statements below for the dense ones on twitter who are going on and on and on........about the alleged contradiction between GA statement below and his lawyer saying that people don't know if Maddie is dead or alive.

  WHAT I KNOW TELLS ME THAT MADDIE IS DEAD [ statement made by GA]

   being according to the twitter pros, the same as

   I KNOW THAT MADDIE IS DEAD.
 

We are so weary of this propaganda.......I have no great hope for a just outcome for Amaral from this trial - after all that has gone before, and the incredible political power the McCanns are able to wield, no matter how lousy their witnesses are, I just have this feeling of dread they'll come out on top again.

Did Kate ever consider how a headline such as the one on the Express could traumatise her children? After reading that their mother was considering suicide, they will live in constant fear that she will actually do it. How selfish of her and I'm sure that she is happy to be in the headlines again as the "poor victim". A true narcissist who cares about no one but herself.

JackieL: Don't forget that the book ban was overturned and other cases brought up against Gonçalo Amaral by the McCanns have been thrown out by the judges.

russiandoll wrote:Please can someone kindly explain the difference between the 2 statements below for the dense ones on twitter who are going on and on and on........about the alleged contradiction between GA statement below and his lawyer saying that people don't know if Maddie is dead or alive.

  WHAT I KNOW TELLS ME THAT MADDIE IS DEAD [ statement made by GA]

   being according to the twitter pros, the same as

   I KNOW THAT MADDIE IS DEAD.
 

You only find rats in sewers - I find its best not to go down there.

This trial is about how the book affected the couple and the twins. The twins could not have been affected by now because they didn't read the book yet. They could have been affected indirectly by their parents reaction to it. Gerry doesn't even get in the picture here. Kate, well, did she read the book? Common knowledge says the answer is negative. If she had read it and went depressed about it, having to go to a psychiatrist because she was sad, revolted, unable to take care of her children, maybe they had a case. If one asks the motive of her sadness, it's impossible to say it was JUST from what the book says. Can a specialist separate the feelings she had from losing her daughter from the ones she had because of the book? Seems it cannot. EL said Kate was ashamed about what the book says. Is that enough to get them winning the case? I think not. Getting back to the start, Kate didn't read it. So if Alipio was dismissed as a witness because he didn't, that should suffice to end the trial already. How could they be affected if they didn't read it?
And why ask for people to take the stand saying how ashamed /sad /depressed /suicidal she was, and not herself go up there and testify? Isn't that a good enough reason to be ashamed of, Kate?!

First the Mirror, and now the Express............

Just looking at the Daily Mirror headlines,,,,,WTF???!!!!!! Unbelievable the power these 2 negligent parents have, who at the very least left 3 children under the age of 4 all alone, to go out on the lash night after night!!!

candyfloss wrote:First the Mirror, and now the Express............

I can see the twins asking their mother: "You wanted to kill your self? Didn't you want to live for us?" The British press is absolutely sickening. They totally misrepresent what Pike said but who cares about the truth when you can sell papers with lies. The headline should be "The truth drove her to the edge".

I'm a bit :bad:  after this, so I bid you all good night.

Ayniia wrote:This trial is about how the book affected the couple and the twins. The twins could not have been affected by now because they didn't read the book yet. They could have been affected indirectly by their parents reaction to it. Gerry doesn't even get in the picture here. Kate, well, did she read the book? Common knowledge says the answer is negative. If she had read it and went depressed about it, having to go to a psychiatrist because she was sad, revolted, unable to take care of her children, maybe they had a case. If one asks the motive of her sadness, it's impossible to say it was JUST from what the book says. Can a specialist separate the feelings she had from losing her daughter from the ones she had because of the book? Seems it cannot. EL said Kate was ashamed about what the book says. Is that enough to get them winning the case? I think not. Getting back to the start, Kate didn't read it. So if Alipio was dismissed as a witness because he didn't, that should suffice to end the trial already. How could they be affected if they didn't read it?
And why ask for people to take the stand saying how ashamed /sad /depressed /suicidal she was, and not herself go up there and testify? Isn't that a good enough reason to be ashamed of, Kate?!

Psychologists and psychiatrists are two different things. A psychiatrist can prescribe anti-depressants. Pike as I understand it is a psychologist. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I rather doubt KM will admit to seeing a shrink.