Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

by Pyewacket 02.10.13 11:16

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

MCCANNS V DR GONCALO AMARAL

(AND GUERRA E PAZ, TVI AND VALENTIM DE CARVALHO)

THE FINAL TRIAL IN LISBON

An account of the proceedings on the first 5 days

(September 12, 13, 19, 20 and 27, 2013)

Published 1 October 2013

by jeanmonroe 02.10.13 11:16

McCann had better be careful.

If he reveals information in an ongoing court case he could be charged with Comtempt of Court, especially it he says anything from the Court that is not verbatim.
IMO.

by plebgate 02.10.13 11:30

Thanks PW

So it looks as though he wont be giving evidence, but apparently he is still attending and is still hoping to. spin

by jeanmonroe 02.10.13 11:34

I hope TC and Ma H's 'evidence' aide-memoires aren't written on similar hotel note paper as MW.

Otherwise people might suspect a 'conspiracy'

big grin

Just to add i don't think any of their witnesses are pocessed of a photographic memory.

They can't seem to remember what they said last week, let alone last year.

Still, there are lots of people that will remind them of just what EXACTLY they did say!

Like TC saying that Maddie was abducted after 9:30pm when Gerry says 15 minutes EARLIER!

by tiny 02.10.13 11:35

jeanmonroe wrote:I hope TC and Ma H's 'evidence' aide-memoires aren't written on similar hotel note paper as MW.

Otherwise people might suspect a 'conspiracy'

you are so funny jeanmonroe:biggrin:

by Pyewacket 02.10.13 11:45

plebgate wrote:Thanks PW

So it looks as though he wont be giving evidence, but apparently he is still attending and is still hoping to.

Just surmising but it may be that both McCann's feel obligated to attend, not only because the press expects them to attend, what is essentially a case about the impacts of GA's book on them. But also to provide some kind of moral support to their witnesses, who after all are expected to stand in the dock, swear on oath and face the likelihood of being cross examined and discredited, without any financial gain to themselves.

It would look even more sick, for the McCanns to pack them off on the plane to Lisbon and then sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle waiting for the Million Pound cheque to drop onto the doormat.

by Woburn_exile 02.10.13 12:43

Just surmising but it may be that both McCann's feel obligated to attend, not only because the press expects them to attend, what is essentially a case about the impacts of GA's book on them. But also to provide some kind of moral support to their witnesses, who after all are expected to stand in the dock, swear on oath and face the likelihood of being cross examined and discredited, without any financial gain to themselves.

That's a debatable point. I would very much doubt that they are footing their own expenses up front and for the tripe they have come out with so far it is hard to imagine that they are not reading from the McCannline script. IMO. At the risk of perjury who is going to do this without a reward?
shark

by jeanmonroe 02.10.13 12:47

A couple of questions the defence may ask:

So Mr McCann, do you think that your wife, Kate McCann, jeopardised the search/investigation, in September 2007, for her daughter more, or less, than Mr Amaral's book, published in July 2008?

So Mr McCann did you ever, in your wildest dreams, ever, think that you would be in a REAL court, under oath, giving your account of events?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.13 12:49

Pyewacket wrote:Just surmising but it may be that both McCann's feel obligated to attend, not only because the press expects them to attend, what is essentially a case about the impacts of GA's book on them. But also to provide some kind of moral support to their witnesses, who after all are expected to stand in the dock, swear on oath and face the likelihood of being cross examined and discredited, without any financial gain to themselves...

But isn't one of the key points about the 11 witnesses in this trial heard so far that the majority of them have, one way or another, made a substantial financial gain out of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

I make it SIX or possibly SEVEN of the 11 witnesses heard so far that have either been in the pay of the McCanns, or of the Find Madeleine Fund, or other related sources.

And I suspect that when the final speeches in this trial by the defendants' four lawyers are heard, at least one of them, if not all four, will raise the issue of whether or not this in any way taints their evidence.

Taking them in the order in which they have appeared so far:

Emma Loach must have made a very tidy sum from producing two documentaries about the McCanns.

Dave Edgar must have received tens of thousands of pounds, if not a six-figure sum, for having acted as the McCanns' chief private investigator for up to five years (he was appointed back in October 2008).

David Trickey, a psychologist, has presumably had his fees for advising the McCanns paid by someone.

Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley, Solicitors, drove up to Rothley and back twice in one day (Friday 14 September) to fetch and take back the McCanns for that all-important lawyers' meeting in London that day - and has no doubt been paid several hundred pounds an hour for his legal advice in the case on that day and since; that might run into thousands of pounds at least.

Alan Pike has been paid by someone (Mark Warners?) for all his huge amount of time counselling the McCanns.

Claudia Nogueria was I think employed by Lift Consulting to provide PR advice in Portugal for the McCanns (in tandem with Clarence Mitchell, whose total earnings from the McCanns over the past six years musy amount to at least £250,000).

None of these, therefore, could possibly be described as neutral, objective witnesses.

Neither could Isabel Stilwell, the feisty Portuguese writer and journalist, though I am not sure if she ever received any payment for writing anything on the McCann case.

That leaves two friends/family members: Susan Hubbard and Michael Wright...

...and João Melchior Gomes and Alípio Ribeiro, who both gave evidence by video conference link and didn't have very much to say anyway.

by Guest 02.10.13 12:55

tasprin wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://home.bt.com/news/latestnews/mccann-to-fly-out-for-libel-case-11363838013842

This also states that Alan Pike is a psychologist.

Perish the thought that articles about the McCanns normally carry inaccurate facts!
The Vanity Fair article is worth reading again http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

The McCann mantra ‘There is no evidence’ appears to have originated from counsellor Alan Pike. Pike told Vanity Fair that when he arrived in Portugal in May 2007 the McCanns ‘were certain Madeleine was dead’ but he reminded them that there was no evidence to support that. The McCanns are free to believe their counsellor’s opinion, however, it is bizarre that those who do not follow his 'advice' are threatened with legal action. Personally I’d have more faith in the police than a counsellor who had nothing whatever to do with the investigation. There is evidence, just not enough-so far.

The company that owns the resort sent Alan Pike, a trauma counselor, over from Britain, and he spoke to the couple every day for two weeks. Initially, the counselor tells me, he found the couple “catatonic.” They were certain Madeleine was dead. [But they said they were incredibly busy - it’s impossible to be catatonic and busy at the same time]
But pessimism, the counselor knew, inhibits action. Moreover, he adds, “they still needed to be a mother and father to two other children.”
“Remind yourself of the evidence: there is nothing yet to demonstrate that Madeleine has died,” Pike told the McCanns. It’s time, he added, to take control of the things you can.
Gerry felt re-invigorated by such advice. “We can’t cry our eyes out every day, because that’s not helping,” he says. “So after three days I picked myself up—quicker than Kate could.”

Imo, Alan Pike is more a friend than a counsellor and his testimony sounds very much as if he was coached to the hilt. Pike seems to have become personally involved with his clients going beyond what was expected of him as a counsellor i.e. reading GA’s book, watching the documentary, bad mouthing the detective in court and accusing GA of breaking judicial secrecy (something the McCanns lawyer Isabel Duarte tried and failed to have GA prosecuted for in 2010).

From Alan Pike’s court testimony:
‘The publication of the Amaral book caused a bombshell. It was not so much the content of the book, but what one could deduce from it as the book had been published so soon after the shelving of the case. The famous secret of the instruction had been broken by the author of the book. There was a feeling of dire frustration and helplessness, the McCanns could speak to nobody, they had been told so‘.

Pike says the McCanns could speak to no one. This is not true, they spoke to everyone, friends and family included, constantly feeding the media information via third parties, even disclosing details of the investigation they wanted publicising. And they spoke to the media themselves - in front of and behind the cameras - non stop.

The media were constantly sought out. Reporters followed the McCanns on trips to Washington (where then U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales met with the couple); to Morocco—just in case Madeleine had been taken there—where they met with Charki Draiss, director-general of national security; and to Amsterdam, where the McCanns had once lived. If the networks needed fresh footage, they would be told the exact time the McCanns might be walking to church in Praia da Luz.
So, as it turned out, this was not a weekend story. As time went by, Gerry explains that although “grief washes over you—it’s like a big wave, mostly I was able to beat it back.” The industry he poured into the search jolted him out of depression.

Pike was asked ‘if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma‘. His answer was ‘the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it’ Really? His answer is in direct contradiction to Gerry McCanns sister Trish Cameron, according to Vanity Fair:

“Do you have something to tell us?” Ricardo asked, dramatically.
“No,” Kate replied. “Do you have something to tell us?”
He nodded. “Yes. You are being made arguidos.” He was using the Portuguese word for “formal suspects.” It was at that point, Trish says, that her sister-in-law became incandescent with rage, screaming, “Do you honestly believe that I would murder my own child?”
“No,” said the policeman

But Pike doesn’t think the twins are likely to suffer - all depends how it’s handled, he says

2008 Scotsman
But what of the probable psychological impact on Madeleine's siblings? They are, says Pike, unlikely to suffer trauma because they are so young. "It depends how the event is portrayed and talked about. How well they cope will depend on how well they are supported as the years go by."---
http://www.scotsman.com/news/missing-madeleine-one-year-on-1-1432429

Tasprin,
Have put your post here, as 2nd October thread is for todays proceedings only.

by tasprin 02.10.13 12:57

Ok, thanks Candyfloss - sorry for the error

by Montclair 02.10.13 12:58

plebgate wrote:Thanks PW

So it looks as though he wont be giving evidence, but apparently he is still attending and is still hoping to.

Gerry will obviously not be giving any evidence today but he can still give evidence on another day if the judge allows. He can't just come to the court house and say I want to speak now, that is not how things are done in Portugal and in most other countries.

by jeanmonroe 02.10.13 13:02

"will raise the issue of whether or not this in any way taints their evidence."

And perhaps Ma Healy AND Trish Cameron may have also benefited from the 'fund' which Clarence Mitchell so helpfully said was available, for use, to 'support' the entire 'wider family'

by tasprin 02.10.13 13:30

Woofer wrote:
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.

No, I don't think there's a law against it either but if they were both suffering from the same destructive symptoms neither of them would have been in a fit state to treat the other. Surely they have to produce independent evidence to support their claim like everyone else. Doctors treating themselves or their partners could easily fabricate medical evidence and say whatever suits their agenda. Shrien Dewani had to produce psychiatric reports from consultant psychiatrists. Why should the McCanns be any different? They must think they are though because they expect to be awarded £1m on their say so and nothing else.

by Liz Eagles 02.10.13 13:46

tasprin wrote:
Woofer wrote:
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.
No, I don't think there's a law against it either but if they were both suffering from the same destructive symptoms neither of them would have been in a fit state to treat the other. Surely they have to produce independent evidence to support their claim like everyone else. Doctors treating themselves or their partners could easily fabricate medical evidence and say whatever suits their agenda. Shrien Dewani had to produce psychiatric reports from consultant psychiatrists. Why should the McCanns be any different? They must think they are though because they expect to be awarded £1m on their say so and nothing else.

Prescribing an anti depressant or drug, collecting it from a pharmacy is not evidence of having actually swallowed the pill or having on-going monitoring.

Nope, it's definitely an independent doctor/psychiatrist's report that's needed.

Good post as ever tasprin.

by marconi 02.10.13 14:03

kate did not go to lisbon and it is better for the couple. she makes too many Freudian mistakes.

by delly55 02.10.13 14:54

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue! nah

by Guest 02.10.13 14:59

delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!

Thanks delly, lots of pics of him on there arriving with Trish and Mrs Healy

by tasprin 02.10.13 15:05

delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!

Batman is the only superhero that does not possess any super powers, but he does have a lot of support from the hired help

by Praiaaa 02.10.13 15:08

tasprin wrote:
delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!
Batman is the only superhero that does not possess any super powers, but he does have a lot of support from the hired help

by comperedna 02.10.13 15:43

Trouble is, Cristobel, a lot of people will start clamouring for state control of the press: 'Hacked Off' and co, and the limiting of investigative journalism because of that deeply unwise and over-the-top Daily Mail article. Dacre is an ass! (esp the tasteless joke with the picture of R Miliband's grave.)

by Liz Eagles 02.10.13 16:01

delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!

Sky News spell Goncalo's name Goncolo, and Daily Mail spell it Goncaro....

by Liz Eagles 02.10.13 16:04

tasprin wrote:
delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!
Batman is the only superhero that does not possess any super powers, but he does have a lot of support from the hired help

Given the fact that the press can't spell Goncalo's name correctly, I think we might have hit on something here....Badman and Ribbon. big grin

by lj 02.10.13 16:28

aquila wrote:
tasprin wrote:
delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!
Batman is the only superhero that does not possess any super powers, but he does have a lot of support from the hired help
Given the fact that the press can't spell Goncalo's name correctly, I think we might have hit on something here....Badman and Ribbon.

by tasprin 02.10.13 16:44

lj wrote:
aquila wrote:
tasprin wrote:
delly55 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441552/Madeleine-McCanns-father-Gerry-attends-Portugal-court-family-sues-police-chief-Goncaro-Amaral-1m.html

Batman to the rescue!
Batman is the only superhero that does not possess any super powers, but he does have a lot of support from the hired help
Given the fact that the press can't spell Goncalo's name correctly, I think we might have hit on something here....Badman and Ribbon.

Bagman and Robbing