Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by loopzdaloop 23.09.13 3:14

Sceneset wrote:loopdaloop, I do understand all that ( I'm married to one!) my point is that any psychologist who 'offers ' counselling services has to be registered, and as far as I can see he isn't.

The point of posting the additional info was that I was wondering if Kate had embellished his credentials for her own gain as he does appear to be just a counsellor, not a psychologist as A psychologist has to be registered with the HPC if they offer any of the strands within that sphere eg counselling.

I just don't feel a counsellor would be the best person to be able to accurately comment on her state of mind, which is maybe why he has been elevated to this level.

It is not compulsory to be registered with the BACP to offer counselling or psychotherapy, although it does increase your credibility. There are many charities up and down the country where they choose not to register as what you get for your fees is not worth the outlay. This is similar for the British Psychological Society as to practice under a protected title you only have to be registered with the HCPC. He is not claiming to currently work as a social worker or any protected title. He is calling himself a crisis psychologist which is fine. You, I and the neighbours dog are considered 'credible' to report what someone has told us. He did not diagnose anything and is working within the realms of what his company says it does.

With that being said, I don't think she has embellished his credentials as this is how he is entitled to present himself. Conversely i do think that he is another self serving crank they have characteristically purchased. This is the same perspective I hold of Mr Trickey who is registered as a Clinical Psychologist yet his CV even indicates he subscribes to pseudoscientific discredited theories (EDMR). He also has a website where he rents himself out to the highest bidder.

What these junk ''experts" show is that team mccann are desperate as they don't have anyone of any eminent standing which might be considered surprising to people unfamiliar with the case. I believe the involvement of these particular people was prepared in advance for an emergency and they are just pawns being moved in a manner similar to the other examples of retrofit (sea bass/tea stain).

by aiyoyo 23.09.13 3:33

TVI – Did you know that TVI wanted also to broadcast the Channel 4 documentary (Emma Loach's one, "Madeleine was here")?
CN says she knows.

VC– Did they contract Lift Consulting in order to spread their initiatives and positions?
CN says they wanted to remind the public of the facts of the disappearance. They were trying to counter the propaganda and the theories that some newspapers were printing.

VC says it's the first time he has heard such a thing.

Another one who scored own goal for team Mccann.
Propaganda? Has she slandered (on Mccanns behalf) the newspapers there?

I like the lawyer's response....

SO – Did you read the book and think that whoever reads might think that GA speaks the truth?
CN says she read the book.

She's proven to be Isabel Hudson of UK. Both duped by Kate, both monitor the mainstream and internet media respectively for the Mccanns.

by aiyoyo 23.09.13 4:18

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.

If ID summoned them, it misfired big time isn't it?
Own goals then.
Ironically in calling these important officials, she'd helped team Amaral, when she lost her chance to prove her libel claim
She's emerged having no substance or tangible evidence to show for her claim.

Her other lot of witnesses to support her other claim of mccanns' mental and emotional health and condition also backfired when a few of them put their foot in on several occasions.
SH said mccanns spent more energy being angry with the book (defending themselves) than searching.
Loach said they (the mccanns) were more ashamed to be arguidos than what the book says.
A Counsellor who didn't have the professional credential of psychologist to qualify his "secondary trauma" statement.
PR who claimed PT newspaper reports were just propaganda.
Edgar not given full files

Would ID be able to produce specialists certification from clinics or hospital to support the mccanns emotional health condition?
Would Gerry risk his career? Would Kate risk being seen as unstable around the twins? A medical report of that kind could jeopardise a lot for them.
I

by tiny 23.09.13 7:54

cant seem to find if kates mum took to the witness box,any one know or have we got her testimony to come

by The Rooster 23.09.13 8:18

Morning, does anyone know what the likely court costs will be for the losing party of the libel trial?

by ultimaThule 23.09.13 8:24

tiny wrote:cant seem to find if kates mum took to the witness box,any one know or have we got her testimony to come

It would seem Ma Healy hasn't made an appearance as yet - perhaps the biggest ~~porkies~~ guns are being saved for the finale? I'm secretly hoping Aunty Phil will bring the curtain down ~~if she's not wearing it.~~

Is it known whether the saintly pair sued 24 Horas for claiming Gerry's donation was not used in the petri dish that produced Madeleine? I read somewhere that Mr Tinty-Head promised ~~pigs~~ writs would fly in the direction of that publication.

by tiny 23.09.13 8:36

ultimaThule wrote:
tiny wrote:cant seem to find if kates mum took to the witness box,any one know or have we got her testimony to come
It would seem Ma Healy hasn't made an appearance as yet - perhaps the biggest ~~porkies~~ guns are being saved for the finale? I'm secretly hoping Aunty Phil will bring the curtain down ~~if she's not wearing it.~~

Is it known whether the saintly pair sued 24 Horas for claiming Gerry's donation was not used in the petri dish that produced Madeleine? I read somewhere that Mr Tinty-Head promised ~~pigs~~ writs would fly in the direction of that publication.

thanks,i cant wait to read what she has to say:biggrin:

by Penfold 23.09.13 8:59

loopzdaloop wrote:

What these junk ''experts" show is that team mccann are desperate as they don't have anyone of any eminent standing which might be considered surprising to people unfamiliar with the case. I believe the involvement of these particular people was prepared in advance for an emergency and they are just pawns being moved in a manner similar to the other examples of retrofit (sea bass/tea stain).

The CCPsupport forum seems to bear out this theory - offering their help even if you're "preparing for the future".

[trying to find link, bear with me -Safari is playing up!]
Gottit! -
http://www.ccpsupport.co.uk/Trauma%20Care - in their FAQs.

by Guest 23.09.13 9:37

I suppose the future planning is arranging mock drills to prepare for real-life emergencies which might happen later - preferably not on the same day as 9/11 and 7/7 but that's another story.

by Penfold 23.09.13 9:41

Evil, suspicious mind -that's me!

by jeanmonroe 23.09.13 10:08

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?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well SY are starting 'if abduction was in uk" aren't they,.... a 'claim' made by ONLY them?

Perhaps they are waitng for Bernies ELITES to storm the court and rescue them from those nasty lawyers asking nasty questions!

Where are Andy and the Elites?

Undercover in court 'taking notes'?

by russiandoll 23.09.13 13:53

Photo of GA and lawyer leaving court at lunchtime recess Friday

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 33 FfLZNNb

by Guest 23.09.13 13:55

They certainly look happy - no wonder, with the standard of the McCann witnesses!

by russiandoll 23.09.13 13:57

from evidence of CN, Portuguese PR person for McCanns , exchange between her and GA's lawyer :

SO – How did you work on the news?
CN says she translated the British news in Portuguese and adapted it for the Portuguese public and the Portuguese culture. This was her job

ADAPTED ?

To make suitable for a particular purpose or new requirements or conditions, by means of modifications or changes.

How interesting, a bit of re-working or re-writing with an objective in mind. No prizes for guessing what that was as she is a PR specialist.

by jeanmonroe 23.09.13 13:58

DAY THREE

ID – Are the facts mentioned in his book (Amarals) and in the documentary part of the investigation?
MG says he didn't read the book nor did he watch the documentary.

A momentary silence envelops the court room. ID then states that, if that is the case then she will refer to the PJ Files 2587-2602 (Vol X) dated 10 SEP 2007 (Report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida).

She (ID) doesn't have a copy of the documents however and neither does the Judge. The Court clerk hurriedly exits the Court in an attempt to find them.

Meanwhile the Court clerk is back with a few CDs saying she found no paper copy of the Report. The Judge says she doesn't see the point in any event
________________________________________________________________________________

I don't know if it's just me, but the 'conclusions' and the REPORT by Inspector Tavares de Almeida which ID is referring to were related in court on DAY TWO!

So how could the Court Clerk NOT find the 'report' on Day 3?

IT is in the 'evidence' recorded in Court on Day 2!!!

Has some of the 'evidence' been 'abducted'? big grin

WTF is going on?

ETA: A momentary silence envelops the court room. ID then states that, if that is the case then she will refer to the PJ Files 2587-2602 (Vol X) dated 10 SEP 2007 (Report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida).

She (ID) is going to refer to the PJ 'report' and then does NOT have a 'copy' to hand?

What sort of lawyer is so unprepared as to not have 'evidence' to hand?

Mind you she's only had 4 YEARS to 'prepare'!

Another one that must have thought 'it would never get to a Court room because GA would capitulate, unquestionly, to the McCanns demands, so preparation of evidence would be a waste of her time!

by russiandoll 23.09.13 14:05

We have left the rabbit hole and have entered

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE - Page 33 71LziqGahoL._SL1007_

by Liz Eagles 23.09.13 14:35

The only thing that can give clear evidence of KM's claim of depression etc after GA's book must surely have to come from qualified professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists. So far none of these have been presented to give testimony. Calling up a hired trauma counsellor doesn't cut the mustard - neither does calling up your mates and your family.

As I understand things, the process is for the Mc's to prove they were emotionally damaged etc as a direct result of GA's book. Or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps documentation from professionals has been submitted to the court. If that is the case there will be date sensitive records of clinical treatment and any prescribed medicines one would hope (although you don't actually have to swallow a pill).

What I find strange is that the case for the plaintiff so far seems to be concerned mainly on KM's 'suffering'.

by russiandoll 23.09.13 14:42

aquila wrote:The only thing that can give clear evidence of KM's claim of depression etc after GA's book must surely have to come from qualified professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists. So far none of these have been presented to give testimony. Calling up a hired trauma counsellor doesn't cut the mustard - neither does calling up your mates and your family.

As I understand things, the process is for the Mc's to prove they were emotionally damaged etc as a direct result of GA's book. Or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps documentation from professionals has been submitted to the court. If that is the case there will be date sensitive records of clinical treatment and any prescribed medicines one would hope (although you don't actually have to swallow a pill).

What I find strange is that the case for the plaintiff so far seems to be concerned mainly on KM's 'suffering'.

I have just posted Michael Wright's evidence on a new thread. He is asked by ID whether Kate was depressed and the judge overrules the q saying that is a q which should be put to a doctor.

by gbwales 23.09.13 14:51

To me, all the great depression / suicide stuff seems like a ludicrous risk borne out of a very ill-concieved bluffing strategy.
It seems as if it's not been properly thought through.

They're trying to make claims that GA's book has been so incredibly destructive and so massively detrimental to Kate's mental health (even though the original case is surely supposed to be about the effects on the search!) that they risk having her sectioned or losing her twins.

by tiny 23.09.13 15:09

russiandoll wrote:
aquila wrote:The only thing that can give clear evidence of KM's claim of depression etc after GA's book must surely have to come from qualified professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists. So far none of these have been presented to give testimony. Calling up a hired trauma counsellor doesn't cut the mustard - neither does calling up your mates and your family.

As I understand things, the process is for the Mc's to prove they were emotionally damaged etc as a direct result of GA's book. Or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps documentation from professionals has been submitted to the court. If that is the case there will be date sensitive records of clinical treatment and any prescribed medicines one would hope (although you don't actually have to swallow a pill).

What I find strange is that the case for the plaintiff so far seems to be concerned mainly on KM's 'suffering'.
I have just posted Michael Wright's evidence on a new thread. He is asked by ID whether Kate was depressed and the judge overrules the q saying that is a q which should be put to a doctor.

perhaps some one is trying to throw kate under a bus

by ultimaThule 23.09.13 15:20

russiandoll wrote:We have left the rabbit hole and have entered

I note that TM have trademarked another title :laughat:but Season 1? Surely it's Season ~~of the Witch~~ 1001 and counting...?

by Ribisl 23.09.13 18:38

aquila wrote:The only thing that can give clear evidence of KM's claim of depression etc after GA's book must surely have to come from qualified professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists. So far none of these have been presented to give testimony. Calling up a hired trauma counsellor doesn't cut the mustard - neither does calling up your mates and your family.

Just catching up on the posts...

I agree aquila, their witnesses appear to be neither sufficiently independent nor professionally qualified (eg BA Social Science). Furthermore, their general lack of background knowledge is astonishing. This is a trial about the damaging effects a book may or may not have had on the plaintiffs and their own witnesses admit quite unabashedly that they hadn't even bothered to read the translation of the book.

So according to their own witnesses, Kate was traumatised by the thought of losing the twins while believing that Madeleine was in the hands of paedophiles. She was traumatised by AG's book because of the damage it could do to her reputation. I am speechless.

by aiyoyo 23.09.13 18:53

aquila wrote:The only thing that can give clear evidence of KM's claim of depression etc after GA's book must surely have to come from qualified professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists. So far none of these have been presented to give testimony. Calling up a hired trauma counsellor doesn't cut the mustard - neither does calling up your mates and your family.

As I understand things, the process is for the Mc's to prove they were emotionally damaged etc as a direct result of GA's book. Or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps documentation from professionals has been submitted to the court. If that is the case there will be date sensitive records of clinical treatment and any prescribed medicines one would hope (although you don't actually have to swallow a pill).

If they had that, they would not have put sub-standard hired trauma counsellor on the stand?

Michael Wrong on the stand:

ID - Is Kate depressed?

The Judge overrules, saying this is a question for a doctor.

What I find strange is that the case for the plaintiff so far seems to be concerned mainly on KM's 'suffering'.

by lj 23.09.13 19:09

gbwales wrote:To me, all the great depression / suicide stuff seems like a ludicrous risk borne out of a very ill-concieved bluffing strategy.
It seems as if it's not been properly thought through.

They're trying to make claims that GA's book has been so incredibly destructive and so massively detrimental to Kate's mental health (even though the original case is surely supposed to be about the effects on the search!) that they risk having her sectioned or losing her twins.

Deep depression are sometimes caused by events, or actions of another person. To give an example (and yes it is almost a cliche) a divorce can be devastating for all involved, including young and vulnerable children. Are we gonna sue now everyone who wants a divorce? The death of a spouse partner, or even a serious disease can equally cause a depression. So are we now going to sue all ill or dying partners. Shît happens, as they say, life happens, and being depressed is something that will happen to some people. A depression is seriously enough, so serious that it seems like a bad joke to try to make money off it. That in itself would make experts doubt if it really is a depression.

I could understand a libel suit. But suing someone because he caused your depression seems farfetched imo.

by Guest 23.09.13 19:11

It was my impression that FIRST you had to establish tort -or whatever it's called in Portugal;

Then you prove the defendant had anything to do with it;

Then you prove the defendant is to blame for what happened;

And FINALLY: you establish what damage was suffered by THIS claimant because of THIS attributable wrongdoing by THIS particular defendant.

So far, I see only mistress Duarte turning on the spouts for so-far unsubstantiated 'depressions' 'anger' etc etc

But not a word about any of GA's activities having constituted tort, let alone solid evidence

And please note: he is fully entitled to publish his book, so writing and publishing it does not -per se- constitute tort