Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by lj 22.09.13 14:49

plebgate wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:This judge worries me too, though. She seems to always be interrupting the Defence lawyers' questioning for no real reason and she seems far to relaxed about permitting all this hearsay evidence ("I know 'cos the McCanns told me so"). They wouldn't get away with that on Judge Judy!!

This could be a shrewd ploy on behalf of the judge. The evidence can be permitted but discounted as heresay in the final summing up of the case. If there are several instances of heresay all coming from the McCann camp the judge can listen to it but chuck it out at the end and include that in summing up. Ask the 2 questions

Has all/most of the evidence come from the McCann side and clearly been directed by them?
Yes
Have the McCann side given evidence in court?
No.

Pathetic really.
Mr. Amaral's lawyer did point out to the judge that Pike's evidence was all hearsay, the judge did not agree/disagree, but for sure it has been noted.

Thank you for posting that. I haven't read all the testimony yet, but I was amazed why this man could testify to so many thing out of his expertise.

by aiyoyo 22.09.13 15:07

ShuBob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari
Woofer, you're missing the point altogether.
I dont think it was them who called the Police Officials as witnesses.

Even IF they'd suicidal wish and stupid enough to even think it, I doubt the Police Officials would accept, neither can they be dragged by the Mccanns to appear if they refused.

Logic dictates the Police Officials were summoned by the Court, as only the Court Authority can oblige them to attend.

Now, it may be that team Mccann proposed to the Court to call Police and/or Public Officials to testify, and Court duly summoned them, but I seriously doubt that is how it happened.
Can anyone imagine the Mccanns offering themselves as lambs for the slaughter?

Think about it.
Can they realistically hope to expect police and/or public officials to come on and testify in their favour' and in so doing invalidate their own works and reports?
Can any sane person see that possibly happening - the mccanns expecting police officials to stand behind their claims?
But equally, regardless of who summoned the witness, why would Duarte then ask him (Gomes) the questions she asked? If that isn't suicidal tactics I don't know what is!

Because she's a stupid woman taken in by kate's pulp fiction and believed it to be truth.
Either that, or she doesn't care about the truth, only care about money and maintaining a formidable reputation. Think CR, same category of species.

Or she got her nickers so twisted she hadn't a clue what she was hoping for when she asked the questions.
She was probably duped by her clients to believe certain thing (ie developments leading to reopening) and didnt realise her questions are pitfalls.

ID explains that the issue at stake is the effect which Goncalo Amaral's book had following its publication in July 2008. She asks whether MG is aware of any developments subsequent to the release of the AG Report which could have led to the reopening of the case. MG says no new element emerged which the Public Ministry was aware of. There was information received but it was found to be irrelevant to the case. That was the situation at least up until November 2010, when he retired.

What was that question about if not the belief there's development......

ID asks if the AG Report reflects the results of the criminal investigation up to July 2008.
MG answers that the Report is based on evidence (elementos de prova) gathered by the PJ, GNR, etc. and also, by Leicestershire Police and others in the UK, He says that thousands of people were contacted.

I think that's her roundabout way of asking what else were on files but not released.
She was fishing for info in that question but didn't get what she wants to hear.

by statsman 22.09.13 15:23

I think Mrs 'invited' Melchior Gomes to give evidence so that she could be sure that the PJ was not withholding any evidence from her about the case.

by JackieL 22.09.13 16:39

Woofer wrote:Cribbed from UK Justice Forum

Day 1 - Witness 1 - Mrs Hubbard - Wife of Rev Hubbard, friend of McCanns since May 2007
            Witness 2 - Emma Loach - Documentary maker
            Witness 3 - Dave Edgar - Retired policeman employed by the McCanns

Day 2 - Witness 1 - David Trickey - Psychologist and specialist in child trauma.
           Witness 2 - Angus McBride - Lawyer and advisor to McCanns when back from Portugal Sept 07
           Witness 3 - Claudia Nogueira - PR expert, Lift Consulting; very good friend of KM - no details of evidence

Day 3 - Witness 1 - Alan Pike - Crisis counsellor
           Witness 2 - Melchior Gomes - Deputy Attorney General (Ret`d) and only person to sign AG Report
           Witness 3 - Alipio Ribeiro - National Director of the PJ

Thanks Woofer, and special thanks to Anne over on UK Justice Forum for such an EXCELLENT job of court reporting. clapping

Now, who the hell is this Claudia Nogueira PR lady, then?

by Guest 22.09.13 17:17

statsman wrote:I think Mrs 'invited' Melchior Gomes to give evidence so that she could be sure that the PJ was not withholding any evidence from her about the case.

And boy oh boy, did that backfire when he told the Court that sex-related names & facts were deliberately left out.

Meaning, they are there, they are available; the PJ has them, and now we all know they have them.

Take a deep breath, all those concerned!
You're all in the pipeline to full disclosure;

When the time comes

by Montclair 22.09.13 17:23

aiyoyo wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Do they have a choice if called, does anyone know? I am with russiandoll and Montclair, I think he was for the McCanns.
Ask yourself, do you have the freedom of choice to refuse the person you are against, had you been approached by that very person?

Only the law can oblige you, I should think so.

If you are called as a witness, you have to go whether you have agreed to testify on someone's behalf to or not. The parties involved present to the court a list of witnesses who then are called to testify. Furthermore, the court does not call its own witnesses. I would like to clarify that for now, only the witnesses for the McCanns are being questioned and when they are finished, it will be the turn of the defense witnesses.

by Guest 22.09.13 17:38

Montclair wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Do they have a choice if called, does anyone know? I am with russiandoll and Montclair, I think he was for the McCanns.
Ask yourself, do you have the freedom of choice to refuse the person you are against, had you been approached by that very person?

Only the law can oblige you, I should think so.

If you are called as a witness, you have to go whether you have agreed to testify on someone's behalf to or not. The parties involved present to the court a list of witnesses who then are called to testify. Furthermore, the court does not call its own witnesses. I would like to clarify that for now, only the witnesses for the McCanns are being questioned and when they are finished, it will be the turn of the defense witnesses.

Thanks Montclair. thumbsup

Do you know if the lawyers for Mr Amaral will have 4 days for their witnesses, as I thought there were only 2 days left, and the judgement on 5th November?

by Montclair 22.09.13 17:40

JackieL wrote:
Woofer wrote:Cribbed from UK Justice Forum

Day 1 - Witness 1 - Mrs Hubbard - Wife of Rev Hubbard, friend of McCanns since May 2007
            Witness 2 - Emma Loach - Documentary maker
            Witness 3 - Dave Edgar - Retired policeman employed by the McCanns

Day 2 - Witness 1 - David Trickey - Psychologist and specialist in child trauma.
           Witness 2 - Angus McBride - Lawyer and advisor to McCanns when back from Portugal Sept 07
           Witness 3 - Claudia Nogueira - PR expert, Lift Consulting; very good friend of KM - no details of evidence

Day 3 - Witness 1 - Alan Pike - Crisis counsellor
           Witness 2 - Melchior Gomes - Deputy Attorney General (Ret`d) and only person to sign AG Report
           Witness 3 - Alipio Ribeiro - National Director of the PJ
Thanks Woofer, and special thanks to Anne over on UK Justice Forum for such an EXCELLENT job of court reporting.

Now, who the hell is this Claudia Nogueira PR lady, then?

Where's Michael Wright? We know that he has already testified. This must have been a provisional list made before the delay due to the absence of the judge.

by lj 22.09.13 17:41

aiyoyo wrote:All the plaintiffs, bearing Gerry, have someone in certain professional capacity speaking for them.
Twins have one psychologist arguing for their case.
Kate has a ~~phoney psychologist~~ crisis counsellor speaking up for her.
Yet, neither of them mentioned Gerry, as if he did not need trauma counselling or assesssing.
Pike said he was hired since end 2007 (until when - 2010 or present day) by the Mccanns, presumably paid out of the Fund. So you are left wondering why was it his testimony concentrates mainly on Kate. He creates the impression he's the Mrs. personal counsellor and probably went beyond professional counselling. His regular visits to Rothley and although he said they also (likely only Kate since Gerry is working) go to his office, it would appear that he gave her personal counselling.

Someone conducting professional counselling only listens but never advise. When that border is crossed, in that when counsellor starts to advise, it becomes personal. Then the professional client-counsellor relationship has evolved to become a friend-counsellor relationship, thus no longer objective or dispassionate.

The pertinent question would whether is this friend-counsellor type assessment be valid for use for the purpose?
Surely one cant claim all sort of psychological mental or emotional condition under the sun, then merely drag out family members or friends to testify and expect to be taken seriously.

If Kate & Gerry have been visiting specialists' clinics regularly to get help for the conditions they claimed then they should get the specialists to certify their conditions or to act as witnesses. Otherwise they might as well have dragged any Tom Dick & Harry (laymen in other words) they met on the street, befriended, and who became their confidantes to Court in the same manner they wheeled layman family members and friends out for the purpose.

Exactly, and I have no doubt they have seen enough real professionals, starting with their GP who was part of the welcome committee when they returned to Rothley. Didn't those professionals want to testify or was Kate afraid for what they would say, when on the stand.

by Montclair 22.09.13 17:45

candyfloss wrote:
Montclair wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Do they have a choice if called, does anyone know? I am with russiandoll and Montclair, I think he was for the McCanns.
Ask yourself, do you have the freedom of choice to refuse the person you are against, had you been approached by that very person?

Only the law can oblige you, I should think so.

If you are called as a witness, you have to go whether you have agreed to testify on someone's behalf to or not. The parties involved present to the court a list of witnesses who then are called to testify. Furthermore, the court does not call its own witnesses. I would like to clarify that for now, only the witnesses for the McCanns are being questioned and when they are finished, it will be the turn of the defense witnesses.
Thanks Montclair. Do you know if the lawyers for Mr Amaral will have 4 days for their witnesses, as I thought there were only 2 days left, and the judgement on 5th November?

This trial will last as long as need be and it will necessarily end on 5 November. Don't forget that there are 4 respondents and they are each entitled to 10 witnesses.

by Woofer 22.09.13 17:51

aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari
Woofer, you're missing the point altogether.
I dont think it was them who called the Police Officials as witnesses.

Even IF they'd suicidal wish and stupid enough to even think it, I doubt the Police Officials would accept, neither can they be dragged by the Mccanns to appear if they refused.

Logic dictates the Police Officials were summoned by the Court, as only the Court Authority can oblige them to attend.

Now, it may be that team Mccann proposed to the Court to call Police and/or Public Officials to testify, and Court duly summoned them, but I seriously doubt that is how it happened.
Can anyone imagine the Mccanns offering themselves as lambs for the slaughter?

Think about it.
Can they realistically hope to expect police and/or public officials to come on and testify in their favour' and in so doing invalidate their own works and reports?
Can any sane person see that possibly happening - the mccanns expecting police officials to stand behind their claims?

I know I`m a bit slow to cotton on sometimes, but your point was understood or else I wouldn`t have replied `I know`. I do agree with you and agree it goes against all logic. I can only assume that the Justice/Police Officials had no choice, so that`s why they gave the answers they did. I just wonder what sort of answer ID was hoping for. I also think the McCann`s (being deluded and narcissistic as they are) expect all these people in high places to be automatically on their side.

by Woofer 22.09.13 18:04

Portia wrote:
statsman wrote:I think Mrs 'invited' Melchior Gomes to give evidence so that she could be sure that the PJ was not withholding any evidence from her about the case.
And boy oh boy, did that backfire when he told the Court that sex-related names & facts were deliberately left out.

Meaning, they are there, they are available; the PJ has them, and now we all know they have them.

Take a deep breath, all those concerned!
You're all in the pipeline to full disclosure;

When the time comes

All depends whose name(s) is on the list. Could be good. Equally SY will have had access to it and it could be an easy way for SY (or other Establishment undercover services) to stick a pin in the list and say `that one` , prefereably a dead one - then hey presto we have a culprit to take the rap.

by ShuBob 22.09.13 18:06

aiyoyo wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:He was approached by the Plaintiffs (the McCanns) and he did accept. But in this acceptance put a real spanner in the works for them.
Are you saying the plaintiffs are really suicidal! Now, that will do Kate in quicker than her ~~self~~-~~invoked~~ depression.

Why would they expect Police Officials to stand as witness for them, knowing what they knew?

You would call as witness only people who are pro-you I hope.

I know - that`s what so ridiculous - I think the term is Hari Kari
Woofer, you're missing the point altogether.
I dont think it was them who called the Police Officials as witnesses.

Even IF they'd suicidal wish and stupid enough to even think it, I doubt the Police Officials would accept, neither can they be dragged by the Mccanns to appear if they refused.

Logic dictates the Police Officials were summoned by the Court, as only the Court Authority can oblige them to attend.

Now, it may be that team Mccann proposed to the Court to call Police and/or Public Officials to testify, and Court duly summoned them, but I seriously doubt that is how it happened.
Can anyone imagine the Mccanns offering themselves as lambs for the slaughter?

Think about it.
Can they realistically hope to expect police and/or public officials to come on and testify in their favour' and in so doing invalidate their own works and reports?
Can any sane person see that possibly happening - the mccanns expecting police officials to stand behind their claims?
But equally, regardless of who summoned the witness, why would Duarte then ask him (Gomes) the questions she asked? If that isn't suicidal tactics I don't know what is!
Because she's a stupid woman taken in by kate's pulp fiction and believed it to be truth.
Either that, or she doesn't care about the truth, only care about money and maintaining a formidable reputation. Think CR, same category of species.

Or she got her nickers so twisted she hadn't a clue what she was hoping for when she asked the questions.
She was probably duped by her clients to believe certain thing (ie developments leading to reopening) and didnt realise her questions are pitfalls.

Conversely, it can be argued that she's stupid enough to call the witnesses.

by Sceneset 22.09.13 18:07

Aiyoyo and ij, I didn't realise he visited Kate at home.

Counsellors in whatever capacity shouldn't visit their clients homes for the reasons you suggested.

It blurs the basis of the relationship which should be bounded by a professional, boundaried space,set times and dates for therapy.

It's supposed to be a professional relationship and that's why they should be registered and agree to adhere to a code of ethics to protect both parties.

The client/ counsellor relationship is fraught with dangers for both parties regarding feelings for each other developing under such a close, traumatic time and the issue of transference and counter transference makes it so.
The counsellors need supervision to deal with what the relationship can throw at them from the client and from themselves.

I can't believe under such conditions the counselling was particularly effective.

Blurred lines and half truths again.

by Woofer 22.09.13 18:23

Montclair wrote:
JackieL wrote:
Woofer wrote:Cribbed from UK Justice Forum

Day 1 - Witness 1 - Mrs Hubbard - Wife of Rev Hubbard, friend of McCanns since May 2007
            Witness 2 - Emma Loach - Documentary maker
            Witness 3 - Dave Edgar - Retired policeman employed by the McCanns

Day 2 - Witness 1 - David Trickey - Psychologist and specialist in child trauma.
           Witness 2 - Angus McBride - Lawyer and advisor to McCanns when back from Portugal Sept 07
           Witness 3 - Claudia Nogueira - PR expert, Lift Consulting; very good friend of KM - no details of evidence

Day 3 - Witness 1 - Alan Pike - Crisis counsellor
           Witness 2 - Melchior Gomes - Deputy Attorney General (Ret`d) and only person to sign AG Report
           Witness 3 - Alipio Ribeiro - National Director of the PJ
Thanks Woofer, and special thanks to Anne over on UK Justice Forum for such an EXCELLENT job of court reporting.

Now, who the hell is this Claudia Nogueira PR lady, then?
Where's Michael Wright? We know that he has already testified. This must have been a provisional list made before the delay due to the absence of the judge.

The only details I can find re: Claudia Nogueira are from Textusa -

"We don't have any other detail about Day 3 witness, PR expert Claudia Nogueira, other than she saying that 2.2 million people, half of TV viewing audience, watched TVI's documentary in Portugal.

We're yet to know how many people watched, in Portugal, the Mockumentary, and see explained to the court the reasons as to why they would believe the one and not the other, or why they couldn't make up their own minds on which version to believe in.

Anyhow we will have to wait for the Anne Guedes transcripts of Day 3 witnesses, Alan Pike, Alipio Ribeiro and Claudia Nogueira, and see what they did say in court."

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/

It`s an good piece by Textusa.

Yes, Michael Wright wasn`t on that list - Can`t remember whether he was Day 2 or 3.

by JackieL 22.09.13 18:46

Having been brought up in the UK and so used to the adversarial Anglo-Saxon legal system, it's difficult to get my head round the way it works in Portugal. Thinking in a UK way, the one reason why a barrister in ID's position might call Ribeiro (if I've got the right guy) is that he was the guy who said in a radio interview when head of the PJ that the decision to make the McCanns arguidos was "hasty".

At the time, it turned into a lot of political in-fighting in Portugal if you remember, and Ribeiro actually apologised for the remaark, but the McCanns made a lot of PR profit from his comment. Maybe that's why ID thought he'd be a sympathetic witness?

Can't remember if Gomes had anything to say in that particular political spat (does anyone recall him being mentioned at the time?), bu't really can't think why ID didn't leave well alone there.

by Woofer 22.09.13 19:07

I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.

by Praiaaa 22.09.13 19:13

Woofer wrote:I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.

Nor me - interesting! His memoirs will be worth reading.

by ShuBob 22.09.13 19:18

Woofer wrote:I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.

As well as the lawyer for the convicted child sex offender the actor Chris Langham. Some may remember that McBride was in the middle of a court case defending Langham against the sex crimes when the McCanns hired him while at the same time telling the world they thought Maddie was in the hands of paedos.

by Woofer 22.09.13 19:26

ShuBob wrote:
Woofer wrote:I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.
As well as the lawyer for the convicted child sex offender the actor Chris Langham. Some may remember that McBride was in the middle of a court case defending Langham against the sex crimes when the McCanns hired him while at the same time telling the world they thought Maddie was in the hands of paedos.

What an odd choice of lawyer for a couple whose child has supposedly been abducted and in the hands of paedos. Now why choose him?

by JackieL 22.09.13 19:27

Thanks for the link Woofer, to Textusa's piece.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/

As one of the comments on the site says, the common weakness of the McCanns' British witnesses is that they haven't bothered to read the translations of the published official case files and so aren't aware of how closely the editors in charge of publishing the book and documentary have stuck to the official text to cover themselves. The witnesses keep getting caught out by the lawyers' questions 'cos they don't actually know how bad the official case files read for the McCanns, never mind the book.

It's worth repeating here Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's exchange with David Trickey, where ID intervenes and ACTUALLY TRIES TO STOP DE CARVALHO READING FROM THE CONCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL FILES. She gets overruled by the judge:

"VC (= Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer– Is the death hypothesis the only thing that worries you?
DT (= David Trickey) says no. The issue is the involvement of the parents.

VC asks permission to read an extract from the book.
Os resultados a que chegámos foram os seguintes:
1. A menor Madeleine McCann morreu no apartamento 5A do Ocean Club, da Vila da Luz, na noite de 3 de Maio de 2007;
2. Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto;
3. Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvimento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha;
4. A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trágico acidente;
5. Existem indícios de negligência na guarda e segurança dos filhos.
Translates as >
The results my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of 3rd May 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. There are clues about the parents’ negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
DT says the idea that the parents aren't able to keep the children safe is terrifying for the children. Then there's the issue of the parents simulating abduction. The problem is that it isn't a suggestion but a conclusion.

VC now asks for a reading of the Conclusion to the Investigation Report dated 10th September 2007 which is also on the internet.

Isabel Duarte objects to this reading, but the judge overrules, saying it's within the files that were released (Vol X, p. 2587-2602)

Por tudo o exposto resulta dos autos que :
A) A menor Madeleine McCann morreu no apartamento 5A do Ocean Club da Praia da Luz na noite do 03 de Maio de 2007.
B) Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto.
C) De forma a impossibilitar a morte da menor antes das 22h, foi inventada uma situação de vigilância das crianças do casal McCann enquanto dormiam.
D) Kate McCann e Gerald McCann estão envolvidos na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha Madeleine McCann.
E) Neste momente parece não existirem ainda fortes indícios de que a morte da menor não tenha ocorrido devido a um trágico acidente.
F) Do apurado até ao momento tudo indica que o casal McCann, como autodefesa, não queira fazer a entrega de forma imediata e voluntaria do cadáver, existindo uma forte probabilidade de o mesmo ter sido transladado do local inicial de deposição. Esta situação é susceptível de levantar questões quanto às circunstancias em que ocorreu a morte da menor.
Translates as >
From all the elements that have been exposed, it results that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of 3rd May 2007;
B) There was a simulation of abduction;
C) In order to make it appear impossible that the death of the minor occurred before 22.00hr, a system of checks on the McCann children while they slept was created;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there is no evidence that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what has been established until now, everything indicates that the McCanns, by virtue of self preservation, don't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, even though there is a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation consequently raises questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
DT says his concern is that the book is more accessible and easier to read.

by ShuBob 22.09.13 19:39

Woofer wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
Woofer wrote:I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.
As well as the lawyer for the convicted child sex offender the actor Chris Langham. Some may remember that McBride was in the middle of a court case defending Langham against the sex crimes when the McCanns hired him while at the same time telling the world they thought Maddie was in the hands of paedos.
What an odd choice of lawyer for a couple whose child has supposedly been abducted and in the hands of paedos. Now why choose him?

At the time the hiring became public, some mused that he may have been hired for just that reason- he had successfully got a child sex offender off lightly- plus he's a dab hand at reputation management.

by gbwales 22.09.13 19:46

It's very telling isn't it...

@ JackieL - that their central concern is not that the book has the same conclusions as the police report, but the public's accessibility to it

@ShuBob - that so much of the world of the McCanns actually is not about their missing daughter, but their own 'reputation management'

Very sad and cynical state of affairs. nah

by Woofer 22.09.13 20:10

ShuBob wrote:
Woofer wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
Woofer wrote:I didn`t realise Angus McBride was also Rebekah Brooks` lawyer.
As well as the lawyer for the convicted child sex offender the actor Chris Langham. Some may remember that McBride was in the middle of a court case defending Langham against the sex crimes when the McCanns hired him while at the same time telling the world they thought Maddie was in the hands of paedos.
What an odd choice of lawyer for a couple whose child has supposedly been abducted and in the hands of paedos. Now why choose him?
At the time the hiring became public, some mused that he may have been hired for just that reason- he had successfully got a child sex offender off lightly- plus he's a dab hand at reputation management.

Gosh - sounds a tad iffy to me. Quite an infamous clique of people they know.

by gbwales 22.09.13 20:23

What's that old biblical phrase....
"By their friends shall ye know them". ?

Log in for more topics