LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 6 Witness No2

Note: This witness is the last witness of the accusation strictly speaking, unless the Judge agrees to Mr Gerry McCann taking the stand in November.

The testimony as it happened...

(02.10.2013, 11:30 am)
Henrique Machado – Staff reporter with the Portuguese Morning Mail (Correio da Manhã) newspaper in Lisbon since 2005. He is not a freelance journalist.

The Judge asks him if he knows why he has been asked to testify.
HM – I think I'm here because I interviewed Mr Amaral in June 2008, before his book was published. I was with Eduardo Dâmaso for this interview. (Note: this interview was published on the 24th of July, the day GA's book was launched, on paper edition only)

The Judge asks in what circumstances this interview occurred.
HM – It was an initiative of the Correio da Manhã. At the time Gonçalo Amaral had already resigned and had left the Polícia Judiciária (PJ).

The Judge asks whether the witness knew that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis about the case.
HM – Yes. He says that this understanding was induced by the orientation of the investigation.

The Judge observes that the process had evolved (after GA was dismissed).
HM says it's normal that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis.

The Judge remarks that it is based on Dr Amaral’s own experiences as Coordinator and not on the investigation as a whole. The investigation went on (after GA's dismissal). How could he know what was happening?
HM says he knew the McCanns were arguidos, that what was happening was public knowledge. He says he never had any contact with Gonçalo Amaral (before the interview).

The Judge tells him he can sit down.

McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID asks the witness whether he knows if Eduardo Dâmaso had contacts with Gonçalo Amaral.
HM argues that the journalists' sources are protected.

The Judge overrules the question.

ID – Do you know that Mr Amaral was dismissed from the case?

Dr Santos de Oliveira, GA's lawyer, protests and the Judge overrules.

ID – Do you know why he was dismissed?

The Judge again overrules.

The Judge overrules SO, but ID interrupts the Judge saying that it was GA who made affirmations...
The Judge interrupts reminding that she is the one who directs the session, she asks ID to please not interrupt her.

ID wants to show a document to the witness, a newspaper (a copy of the Correio da Manhã), in order to confirm that they will speak of the same interview.
ID justifies this request by saying to the Judge that she wonders if there are things in the interview that weren't actually said by Gonçalo Amaral or if GA did say all that's there.

The Judge asks the witness to read the article.
The Judge asks the witness if the interview was taped.
HM answers that interviews are normally tape-recorded in order to provide an accurate transcript.

The documentary maker Valentim de Carvalho's lawyer intervenes to ask whether the transcript is complete or partial or if it was adapted for journalistic reasons.
HM says of necessity it had to be adapted to the allotted space in the newspaper.

VC – Are the titles (note : as he uses a plural, he likely means the title and the sub-headings) the responsibility of the newspaper or did Gonçalo Amaral participate?
HM says GA didn't participate, all titles are the responsibility of the newspaper.

ID starts reading an extract of the interview which refers to the freeze and transport topic and asks if it suffered journalistic treatment.
HM – In what way? Then he adds that sometimes they have to suppress parts of an interview, but they respect what is said.

The Judge asks whether this principle (respect of what is said) applies to the entire interview.
HM says that with so much time passing he can't answer. He says they were careful to keep a certain distance.

VC quotes a sentence on condensation and asks whether it was given journalistic treatment.
HM says that things were said that weren't published, but what is published attributed to GA is accurate. He says that it sometimes happens that a 40-minute speech has to be shortened, but he doesn't cut it in the middle of a sentence. The interviewee might have said things that the journalist considers not relevant and therefore doesn't publish.

The Judge says the witness may go.

Evidence ends.

ID dictates to the Clerk of the Court the proceedings concerning Mrs Healy. She states that, after the Court session was adjourned for reasons independent of the Judge's will, she had given up calling this witness. However she then thought the witness had important things to tell, but she forgot to reapply for this witness to be called. She says she asked the witness to return from the UK hoping that the Court would allow her to testify.

GP (Guerra&Paz's lawyer) dictates her position, the rules have to be respected.

SO (GA's lawyer) dictates that it seems the witness wasn't so important or hadn't significant evidence to report since her colleague opted first to give her up. He observes that it is not a case where, in the course of the trial, an unexpected witness pops up with crucial facts to reveal.

The Judge remarks that on the 24th of September 2013, Dra Duarte declared that she relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She says it's possible to forfeit a witness at any time, but the Court may judge differently and notify the witness if reasons exist to presume that witness has knowledge of important facts for a forthright discussion of the available evidence.

She adds that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize the witness to take the stand.

End of morning session

ShuBob wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Evidence available for Henrique Machado


UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 8m
Exclusive Report #McCann vs Gonçalo #Amaral libel case. Evidence of Portuguese Morning Mail reporter Henrique Machado http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2519.msg82415#msg82415 …

Thanks Candy and to Anne Guedes and her colleagues at Justice Forum  

The Judge remarks that on the 24th of September 2013, Dra Duarte declared that she relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She says it's possible to forfeit a witness at any time, but the Court may judge differently and notify the witness if reasons exist to presume that witness has knowledge of important facts for a forthright discussion of the available evidence.

She adds that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize the witness to take the stand.

 

In other words, the Judge indicated  that none of the witness (so far) had said anything of relevance to the case ......... 

Oh dear.....no wonder ID barked at Anne......

Poor, poor IZZY!

Having a bad day, or days, or weeks!

ID asks the witness whether he knows if Eduardo Dâmaso had contacts with Gonçalo Amaral.
HM argues that the journalists' sources are protected.

The Judge overrules the question.

ID – Do you know that Mr Amaral was dismissed from the case?

Dr Santos de Oliveira, GA's lawyer, protests and the Judge overrules.

ID – Do you know why he was dismissed?

The Judge again overrules.

The Judge overrules SO, but ID interrupts the Judge saying that it was GA who made affirmations...

The Judge interrupts reminding that she is the one who directs the session, she asks ID to please not interrupt her.!!

NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY IZZY BIZZY!
___________________________________________________________________________

The Judge remarks that on the 24th of September 2013, Dra Duarte declared that she relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She says it's possible to forfeit a witness at any time, but the Court may judge differently and notify the witness if reasons exist to presume that witness has knowledge of important facts for a forthright discussion of the available evidence.

She adds that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize the witness to take the stand.

End of morning session

I HOPE SHE WAS PAID UPFRONT!

ETA: Ma Healy's 'evidence' would have ONLY been HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY.

And IZZY BIZZY would have KNOWN that!

Or would she?
  

Poor IZZY looks absolutely 'dejected'.

All the Portuguese witnesses called by Claimants side aren't playing ball........

Greed and maliciousness blind Kate & Gerry's judgment when they embarked on this insane action....

A farce from start to finish.

I would NOT be surprised if Izzy Bizzy says to Mcs she's pulling out of representing them, which is her right.

aiyoyo wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Evidence available for Henrique Machado


UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 8m
Exclusive Report #McCann vs Gonçalo #Amaral libel case. Evidence of Portuguese Morning Mail reporter Henrique Machado http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2519.msg82415#msg82415 …

Thanks Candy and to Anne Guedes and her colleagues at Justice Forum  

The Judge remarks that on the 24th of September 2013, Dra Duarte declared that she relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She says it's possible to forfeit a witness at any time, but the Court may judge differently and notify the witness if reasons exist to presume that witness has knowledge of important facts for a forthright discussion of the available evidence.

She adds that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize the witness to take the stand.

 

In other words, the Judge indicated  that none of the witness (so far) had said anything of relevance to the case ......... 

Oh dear.....no wonder ID barked at Anne......

Precisely

ID dictates to the Clerk of the Court the proceedings concerning Mrs Healy. She states that, after the Court session was adjourned for reasons independent of the Judge's will, she had given up calling this witness. However she then thought the witness had important things to tell, but she forgot to reapply for this witness to be called. She says she asked the witness to return from the UK hoping that the Court would allow her to testify.

She did blunder.....

Did she make similar mistake with Batman's application that caused him two futile trips?

If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

aiyoyo wrote:

ID dictates to the Clerk of the Court the proceedings concerning Mrs Healy. She states that, after the Court session was adjourned for reasons independent of the Judge's will, she had given up calling this witness. However she then thought the witness had important things to tell, but she forgot to reapply for this witness to be called. She says she asked the witness to return from the UK hoping that the Court would allow her to testify.

She did blunder.....

Did she make similar mistake with Batman's application that caused him two futile trips?

Just look at that recent picture of him, in profile; aspiring witness mrs Healy front; and ID (backside turned towards camera)

It doesn't look as if they are all in agreement, does it?

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

tasprin wrote:

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

Trial: 4 years running;
Court fees; say app 15.000 EUR each party, to be paid up front; 
Lawyers: each party (conservatively) say 4 x 200 hrs ad EUR 150,00 plus VAT 21 %  = EUR ??
Witnesses: around EUR 3000-6000 per witness

Assorted costs and expenses: say 10% of above: you figure it out.

Lets say: half a million EUR, or thereabouts

Oh, and lest we forget: the 'injured' party will of course appeal, and thereafter one of them will go to the Court de Cassation;
And when that's over and done with, the Court of Justice of the European Union

So: for the next ten years we'll have our hands full, and so will the Judiciary, to the tune of -say- around EUR 10 mln.

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

Trial: 4 years running;
Court fees; say app 15.000 EUR each party, to be paid up front; 
Lawyers: each party (conservatively) say 4 x 200 hrs ad EUR 150,00 plus VAT 21 %  = EUR ??
Witnesses: around EUR 3000-6000 per witness

Assorted costs and expenses: say 10% of above: you figure it out.

Lets say: half a million EUR, or thereabouts

Oh, and lest we forget: the 'injured' party will of course appeal, and thereafter one of them will go to the Court de Cassation;
And when that's over and done with, the Court of Justice of the European Union

So: for the next ten years we'll have our hands full, and so will the Judiciary, to the tune of -say- around EUR 10 mln.

Thanks Portia.

tasprin wrote:

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

Trial: 4 years running;
Court fees; say app 15.000 EUR each party, to be paid up front; 
Lawyers: each party (conservatively) say 4 x 200 hrs ad EUR 150,00 plus VAT 21 %  = EUR ??
Witnesses: around EUR 3000-6000 per witness

Assorted costs and expenses: say 10% of above: you figure it out.

Lets say: half a million EUR, or thereabouts

Oh, and lest we forget: the 'injured' party will of course appeal, and thereafter one of them will go to the Court de Cassation;
And when that's over and done with, the Court of Justice of the European Union

So: for the next ten years we'll have our hands full, and so will the Judiciary, to the tune of -say- around EUR 10 mln.

Thanks Portia.

I pray to God I'm wrong, though!

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

Trial: 4 years running;
Court fees; say app 15.000 EUR each party, to be paid up front; 
Lawyers: each party (conservatively) say 4 x 200 hrs ad EUR 150,00 plus VAT 21 %  = EUR ??
Witnesses: around EUR 3000-6000 per witness

Assorted costs and expenses: say 10% of above: you figure it out.

Lets say: half a million EUR, or thereabouts

Oh, and lest we forget: the 'injured' party will of course appeal, and thereafter one of them will go to the Court de Cassation;
And when that's over and done with, the Court of Justice of the European Union

So: for the next ten years we'll have our hands full, and so will the Judiciary, to the tune of -say- around EUR 10 mln.

Thanks Portia.

I pray to God I'm wrong, though!

Ditto! What a nightmare,
By the way - apart from the upfront payments - do any of the other trial costs have to be paid before (if) it progresses to the appeal stage?

Missed this - when did ID bark at Anne?
 Glad it is getting to her, and massive thanks to Anne!

So if they lose this first round, where the hell are they going to find half a million euros?  They really can`t justify using money from the Fund can they?  Even if they sell their house, it won`t cover the cost. Or will Gerry pay it off instalments from his salary?

Or is there a rich benefactor whose interest it is that the McCanns win?

tasprin wrote:

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

Portia wrote:

tasprin wrote:

aquila wrote:If the McCanns lose their libel suit in Portugal (and it's looking highly likely so far), will the Limited Company disclose the specific legal costs/expenses incurred, if indeed the Limited Company shelled out for it in the first place. If the Limited Company didn't pay for this lawsuit will the McCanns reveal where the money to bring about such expensive litigation came from?

I doubt it very much Aquila, they've never been transparent about their Limited ('Search') Company.

Does anyone have an idea how much a trial of this nature is likely to cost?

Trial: 4 years running;
Court fees; say app 15.000 EUR each party, to be paid up front; 
Lawyers: each party (conservatively) say 4 x 200 hrs ad EUR 150,00 plus VAT 21 %  = EUR ??
Witnesses: around EUR 3000-6000 per witness

Assorted costs and expenses: say 10% of above: you figure it out.

Lets say: half a million EUR, or thereabouts

Oh, and lest we forget: the 'injured' party will of course appeal, and thereafter one of them will go to the Court de Cassation;
And when that's over and done with, the Court of Justice of the European Union

So: for the next ten years we'll have our hands full, and so will the Judiciary, to the tune of -say- around EUR 10 mln.

Thanks Portia.

I pray to God I'm wrong, though!

Ditto! What a nightmare,
By the way - apart from the upfront payments - do any of the other trial costs have to be paid before (if) it progresses to the appeal stage?

Lawyers fees

Always; in case your client loses the case and will balk at your invoice

UK Justice Forum ‏@Justice_forum 5m
#McCann vs Gonçalo #Amaral libel trial hears that the Attorney General's Final Report says most likely scenario is that #Madeleine is dead.

Portia wrote:Can anyone explain to me, why mistress ID, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressly turns our attention, and in fact the attention of the whole world, to the discussion on the freezer and the means of transporting the child?

While her clients claim could have been heard in camera?

Why doen't the good ID protect the twins, whose plight she is aware of because of ms Camerons utterings, and especially that their schoolmates have now started to question them on the proceedings in the courtroom? 

How should Amelie and Sean possible react, when their mates ask them what was transported in what freezer? 

Why DO this, ms Duarte?

Portia, have I missed something here? When did the freezer argument get raised in the trial?
  

Woburn_exile wrote:

Portia wrote:Can anyone explain to me, why mistress ID, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressly turns our attention, and in fact the attention of the whole world, to the discussion on the freezer and the means of transporting the child?

While her clients claim could have been heard in camera?

Why doen't the good ID protect the twins, whose plight she is aware of because of ms Camerons utterings, and especially that their schoolmates have now started to question them on the proceedings in the courtroom? 

How should Amelie and Sean possible react, when their mates ask them what was transported in what freezer? 

Why DO this, ms Duarte?

Portia, have I missed something here? When did the freezer argument get raised in the trial?
  

I think it may have been this in the transcript on Page 21.....


ID starts reading an extract of the interview which refers to the freeze and transport topic and asks if it suffered journalistic treatment.
HM – In what way? Then he adds that sometimes they have to suppress parts of an interview, but they respect what is said.

Its quite ironic that the person who has been traumatised by GA's book i.e. kate mccann....does not stand up and speak at the trial herself, but gets all her friends & family to speak on her behalf!!  

What more proof does anyone need

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 2m
Madeleine #McCann libel trial resumes. Parents suing ex-cop Goncalo Amaral for £1m over his book's claims they covered up her death.

candyfloss wrote:Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 2m
Madeleine #McCann libel trial resumes. Parents suing ex-cop Goncalo Amaral for £1m over his book's claims they covered up her death.

Thanks Candy Floss. 

Truth Hurty on the dot then.

Big question - Are they there?  Wish someone one tweet that.

Thanks Candy  

Last night on Twitter, a well-known sceptic on the #McCann hashtag was telling a fellow sceptic there was NO hearing today

plebgate wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 2m
Madeleine #McCann libel trial resumes. Parents suing ex-cop Goncalo Amaral for £1m over his book's claims they covered up her death.

Thanks Candy Floss. 

Truth Hurty on the dot then.

Big question - Are they there?  Wish someone one tweet that.

Not unless they borrowed Greenes jet.

GM just been on moaning about press.