Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by Harriet94 01.10.13 19:42

A few days ago I read a reference on this forum to the possibility of there being a super injunction in place in relation to the McCann's ( Diane Websters Rog perhaps?)That got me thinking about how such an injunction would be worded and what reporting restrictions ,if any,would be in place. I am concerned why Martin Brunt failed to report any cross examination of the McCanns witnesses on the first day of the libel trial. Were Sky News biased in their reporting or were they constrained as to what they could report? If there are reporting restrictions in place, is this to ensure that any future trials are not predjudiced or have they been gagged by Libel Lawyers? Just thinking.

by Guest 01.10.13 20:12

Harriet94 wrote: [...] If there are reporting restrictions in place, is this to ensure that any future trials are not predjudiced or have they been gagged by Libel Lawyers? Just thinking.

***
I'd like to think it's to avoid prejudice before going to court and make a "fair" trial impossible ...

by Harriet94 01.10.13 20:24

Châtelaine wrote:
Harriet94 wrote: [...] If there are reporting restrictions in place, is this to ensure that any future trials are not predjudiced or have they been gagged by Libel Lawyers? Just thinking.
***
I'd like to think it's to avoid prejudice before going to court and make a "fair" trial impossible ...

That is what I am hoping. The alternative is very depressing. IMO ( had a go at quoting, hope I haven't copied the whole thread)

by Harriet94 01.10.13 20:37

I have no idea how to "back quote" so re Halligen. Are they suing the man himself or the people that recommended in the first place?

by Guest 01.10.13 20:39

Harriet94 wrote:I have no idea how to "back quote" so re Halligen. Are they suing the man himself or the people that recommended in the first place?

***
IMO they're not doing either ...

by **sharonl** 01.10.13 20:49

One thing I have picked up from the trial is an exchange where one witness (can't remember which) states that Kate McCann became 'very depressed' (after learning of Amaral's book etc. etc.).

The judge appears to jump in very quickly and say: "This kind of evidence needs to be given by a doctor".

I can't see a doctor on the list of witnesses. The nearest we've got so far (and it's a long way away) is a 'psychologist'.

The original libel writ is full of dire information about all manner of depressive and emotional ailments, eating disorders, insomnia, permanent and irrational fear and anxiety, the list just goes on and on.

Why isn't a doctor being called to back up all these sensationalist claims in the writ?

Could it be because if there was any truth in all this, one or both of them would surely have had to have at least seen their G.P. or maybe a psychiatrist - who may have prescribed e.g. anti-depressive drugs. In such a case, would this have to be reported to the General Medical Council?

Maybe if Gerry does take the stand, he will be asked to confirm that he is suffering all these ailments.

If he does, the lawyer's next question will be: when did you consult your G.P., how often, and what has s/he prescribed?

The answer to that question should establish whether the 'grand list' of ailments is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or hogwash and hype.

by Harriet94 01.10.13 20:57

IMHO 'fitness to practise' plays a very big part in all of this as does 'bringing your profession into disripute'

by Woofer 01.10.13 21:52

sharonl wrote:One thing I have picked up from the trial is an exchange where one witness (can't remember which) states that Kate McCann became 'very depressed' (after learning of Amaral's book etc. etc.).

The judge appears to jump in very quickly and say: "This kind of evidence needs to be given by a doctor".

I can't see a doctor on the list of witnesses. The nearest we've got so far (and it's a long way away) is a 'psychologist'.

The original libel writ is full of dire information about all manner of depressive and emotional ailments, eating disorders, insomnia, permanent and irrational fear and anxiety, the list just goes on and on.

Why isn't a doctor being called to back up all these sensationalist claims in the writ?

Could it be because if there was any truth in all this, one or both of them would surely have had to have at least seen their G.P. or maybe a psychiatrist - who may have prescribed e.g. anti-depressive drugs. In such a case, would this have to be reported to the General Medical Council?

Maybe if Gerry does take the stand, he will be asked to confirm that he is suffering all these ailments.

If he does, the lawyer's next question will be: when did you consult your G.P., how often, and what has s/he prescribed?

The answer to that question should establish whether the 'grand list' of ailments is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or hogwash and hype.

I wondered if they can say they treated each other or treated themselves, as they are doctors. I don`t think there is a law against it - the GMC just recommends that doctors don`t treat their own families. This could also be why there is nothing on record for Madeleine because they treated her themselves.

by Harriet94 01.10.13 22:02

IMHO if they are claiming that Amarals book has damaged their fitness to practice, they shouldn't be practising. End Of.

by Guest 01.10.13 22:45

Harriet94 wrote:IMHO if they are claiming that Amarals book has damaged their fitness to practice, they shouldn't be practising. End Of.

***
The core of a weak case, indeed.
A rock and a hard place / The devil & the deep blue sea
keep coming to mind.

This case is basically about being "destroyed" by Dr. Amaral's book.
A Catch 22.

by Guest 01.10.13 22:45

deleted

by Cristobell 02.10.13 0:08

Picked up from Textusa :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7518361.stm

In this interview Kate is claiming arguido status did huge damage to the search, one journalists even asks if they are going to sue the PJ.

by Ollie1 02.10.13 0:36

Madeleine being abducted should of been the cause of depression, fear and everything else they claim. Every sighting claimed to be Madeleine which then turned out to be false should of caused all the symptoms claimed by them....but no, a book, something made of paper with words in it (I am not demeaning the book, just trying to make a point) which they could have ignored had they wanted causes the greatest grief, depression and everything else. I am astounded that a book could do what losing their child who is probably gone forever could not do.

by aiyoyo 02.10.13 2:13

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/

The Mythical child.

Recommended read.

Especially for Michael Wright & McGang who patrol the forum etc.

Kevin as well! Hello Kevin!

by Guest 02.10.13 9:15

aiyoyo wrote:http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/

The Mythical child.

Recommended read.

Especially for Michael Wright & McGang who patrol the forum etc.

Kevin as well! Hello Kevin!

It's here in Debate section aiyoyo....

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7868-the-mythical-child

by plebgate 02.10.13 9:17

Cristobell wrote:Picked up from Textusa :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7518361.stm

In this interview Kate is claiming arguido status did huge damage to the search, one journalists even asks if they are going to sue the PJ.

Somebody on here posted a short while back that they did try to sue the police, because the files were posted on the net. Apparently it was ruled that they could not sue them as they had courted the publicity from the outset. Hadn't seen that before.

by tiny 02.10.13 10:20

Is martin brunt going to twitter on the trial today does any one know.

by Woofer 02.10.13 10:27

tiny wrote:Is martin brunt going to twitter on the trial today does any one know.

Don`t know tiny - the last time he tweeted was yesterday about Dave Lee Travis trial.

by tiny 02.10.13 10:28

Woofer wrote:
tiny wrote:Is martin brunt going to twitter on the trial today does any one know.
Don`t know tiny - the last time he tweeted was yesterday about Dave Lee Travis trial.

thanks woofer,not that I like brunts tweet seems they are a bit one sided

by Woofer 02.10.13 10:34

tiny wrote:
Woofer wrote:
tiny wrote:Is martin brunt going to twitter on the trial today does any one know.
Don`t know tiny - the last time he tweeted was yesterday about Dave Lee Travis trial.
thanks woofer,not that I like brunts tweet seems they are a bit one sided

Yep agree - seems the whole MSM is biased and favours the McCanns - can`t work it out. Its not as if they`re just being impartial so as to avoid being sued. They are blatently favouring them - I just do not get it.

by sallypelt 02.10.13 10:38

A little off topic, but I'm posting this link to show the hypocrisy of the media, and in particular, the Daily Mail. Look how the Mail did some investigative journalism into Ed Miliband's father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-GMTxycAXY&feature=youtu.be

by Pyewacket 02.10.13 10:53

Hi all

Just thought I'd post this taken from GA's site, as there appears no mention of GM being scheduled to appear today !

The judge then announced that the 27th [?] witnesses would be heard on the 2nd of October:
Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhã)
Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst) and
Mrs Trisha Cameron.

From this I deduce that:
1) Mrs Healy will not be heard and
2) Mrs Cameron is the last witness for the prosecution, except for the Bar Association President, Marinho Pinto, who eventually will be heard on the 19th of November.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.13 10:59

sallypelt wrote:A little off topic, but I'm posting this link to show the hypocrisy of the media, and in particular, the Daily Mail. Look how the Mail did some investigative journalism into Ed Miliband's father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-GMTxycAXY&feature=youtu.be

Hallo sallypelt, this is indeed off-topic, so I've posted the full article on the forum, here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7881-the-controversial-daily-mail-article-about-ralph-miliband-father-of-red-ed#179552

I also watched the Newsnight interview. The context, which is very relevant to this forum, is that Ed Miliband is campaigning strongly for state control of the press, as demanded by Lord Leveson, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann (to name but four, including Hugh Grant), whilst the Daily Mail is leading the campaign against this.

Petition on the Prime Minister's website against Lord Leveson-style state control of the press here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42582

by plebgate 02.10.13 10:59

Thanks pyewacket. Do you know when the info. was posted?

by Cristobell 02.10.13 11:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:A little off topic, but I'm posting this link to show the hypocrisy of the media, and in particular, the Daily Mail. Look how the Mail did some investigative journalism into Ed Miliband's father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-GMTxycAXY&feature=youtu.be
Hallo sallypelt, this is indeed off-topic, so I've posted the full article on the forum, here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7881-the-controversial-daily-mail-article-about-ralph-miliband-father-of-red-ed#179552

I also watched the Newsnight interview. The context, which is very relevant to this forum, is that Ed Miliband is campaigning strongly for state control of the press, as demanded by Lord Leveson, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann (to name but four, including Hugh Grant), whilst the Daily Mail is leading the campaign against this.

For the first, and possibly last, time, I actually find myself supporting the Daily Mail. I think it was a cheap shot attacking Ed Milliband's father, but I vehemently oppose state control of the press.