LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?

marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?

jeanmonroe wrote:

marconi wrote:The McCanns had at least 3 years to prepare this libel hearing and they just brought trash witnesses into the case.
Extremely badly prepared, all of them.
How did they manage to make it?

NOT in a million years did they ever think they'd ACTUALLY end up in a real courtroom!

They thought GA would capitulate to them, unreservedly.

They got a lot of dosh for themselves and their mates from an 'uncontested' case from the Express and others.

They thought they'd get the same from GA, imo.

ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.

Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.
 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”
 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before.... 

Woburn_exile wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.

Note the number of referrals to "The investigation now being handled by the Metropolitan Police". This has to be a media stunt surely. What is he supposedly disappointed about?
 

Woburn_exile wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/gerry-mccann-wants-to-speak-in-court.html

It appears that, although Gerry may have been seen entering and leaving the building, he was not allowed into the Court.  As it is inconceivable he wasn't informed he would not be able to participate in today's proceedings, one has to wonder why he chose rack up more airmiles at the expense of the Fund?   

It also appears that Dr Amaral together with his co-defendants and their lawyers hold it within their power to consent to Gerry taking the witness stand, or not as the case may be.

Note the number of referrals to "The investigation now being handled by the Metropolitan Police". This has to be a media stunt surely. What is he supposedly disappointed about?
 

sallypelt wrote:I don't know if this one has been posted

http://www.express.coGerry-McCann-with-his-sister-Trish-JONATHAN-BUCKMASTER- .uk/news/uk/432722/Gerry-McCann-s-anguish-as-court-battle-is-delayed

gbwales wrote:I've emailed The Guardian journalist who wrote that piece above, with the following:

Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.
 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”
 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before.... 

Thanks to PeterMac for those succinct report snippets that are the core of the email. We should share these with the media more often... 

maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.

Monty Heck wrote:

maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.

Intersting quote re SH's evidence:

"Mrs Hubbard said the couple were forced to use all their energy to defend themselves, instead of searching for their daughter."

The implication is that they were forced to defend themselves by the release of the book.  How could anyone in their right mind make that connection when GA's book was not released until after the archiving report was made public, and after they were officially released from their arguido status.  That had massive coverage in the international media resulting in huge numbers of people believing that they had been exonerated, because that was specifically stated in every press release.  Clarence Mitchell even claimed it was the perfect PR campaign.  It's clear from the comments above that people dislike the McCann's mainly on the basis of their having left their children alone and exposing them to danger, then instead of showing remorse, they turned themselves into some kind of celebrities.

The fact is that, while media monitoring may have shown a rise in internet discussion following GA's book release, the commenting in the mainstream media was pretty much along the lines of "how did they get off with not being done for self admitted child neglect - we don't like that" exactly as is being said above, 5 years after the arguido status was rescinded.  The majority of the people commenting on the mainstream press had never even heard of GA before this case, yet it is claimed his book influenced opinion and not only in Portugal.

Monty Heck wrote:

maebee wrote:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/madeleine-mccann-kate-attend-libel-hearing-010321561.html#eZeOSNx

Comments are 100% anti Mc & pro Madeleine. Pity that the rest of the British media don't take a leaf out of Yahoo News' book.

The fact is that, while media monitoring may have shown a rise in internet discussion following GA's book release, the commenting in the mainstream media was pretty much along the lines of "how did they get off with not being done for self admitted child neglect - we don't like that" exactly as is being said above, 5 years after the arguido status was rescinded.  The majority of the people commenting on the mainstream press had never even heard of GA before this case, yet it is claimed his book influenced opinion and not only in Portugal.

littlepixie wrote:My Dad had never heard of Mr Amaral or his book until this week when he read about the ongoing case in the papers.

gbwales wrote:I've emailed The Guardian journalist who wrote that piece above, with the following:

Dear Paul ~

Your report in The Guardian, “Madeleine McCann's father wishes to give evidence in detective's libel trial” (27/09/2013), contains a significant factual error in saying that the McCanns were ‘exonerated’ when the investigation was closed.
 
You may not be aware that the conclusions of the interim report – by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida - on the shelving of the case explicitly state the following (I quote directly from it here):
“We conclude that:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet; From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”
 
It is also worth noting that the Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes, authors of the archiving report, say with specific regard to the abduction theory insisted on by the parents (and their PR team) to the absolute exclusion of any other explanation for the child’s disappearance, that (and again I quote directly):
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.”


Neither of these could possibly be considered as any kind of 'exoneration' - quite the contrary in fact.
 
Over 11,000 pages of reports, evidence, photos and statements from the investigation were released to the public upon the shelving of the case – and you can find them all here along with many translations: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
I very much hope you or the Guardian’s crime desk may care to look at these sometime, as they tell a very different story to the briefings of Clarence Mitchell, upon which it appears the British media depend pretty much exclusively.


It is also worth pointing out that it might be considered unreasonable for a person to suddenly turn up one day at court and insist on being heard (quite contrary to all legal procedure), when in fact they have directly been pursuing the litigation for over 3 years, and have had all the possible planning opportunities well in advance (and interestingly have suddenly tried to settle the matter out of court recently). In fact one might infer it to be an exercise in spinning the UK media against the Portuguese justice system and that Mr McCann might not genuinely wish to enter the witness box under oath at all, being pretty much certain his request would be refused when he made it.


It would be good if The Guardian – a paper which I hold above all others for critical thinking, investigative journalism and integrity – were to publish a correction on the use of the word “exoneration” referring to the above direct quotations from the Police reports.
 
Yours,
etc etc
 
 
For your reference, the first quote is from the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, 10/09/2007 (Ref: 10 Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587 to2602 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

The second quote is from the Legal Summary, Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details (Ref: 17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649 from the case files)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Don't know if we can honestly hope for a 'correction' piece, but I'm fed up of misinformation and spin carrying on, and who knows - maybe they've just been shown something they genuinely weren't aware of before.... 

Thanks to PeterMac for those succinct report snippets that are the core of the email. We should share these with the media more often... 

marconi wrote:it was naief that the McCanns believed in their eternal power. or perhaps they could not get rid of the issue, remaining slaves of the media.
I remember amaral's words: "someday Britain will have another government".
and it happened.

Meirion Jones ‏@MeirionTweets wrote:@JillyCL As far as I know there are no charges just a rumoured civil action by the McCanns