CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION - However, Kate and Gerry have banned the re-enactment of their daughter’s disappearance from taking place in Portugal through fear of angering the country’s police.

aiyoyo wrote:Good Grief, that woman is barking.

As if SY's work has any influence in the Portuguese Jurisdiction!

Besides, her case of libel has nothing to do with the Review.

If she's going there to piss off the Judge that will seal the verdict.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And quite clearly, the book did nothing whatsoever to hamper the search, because the good British taxpayer is coughing up £6k a DAY for over two years. 

Therefore, if the Judge has a single functioning brain cell, there can only be one verdict.

Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.

plebgate wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.

I don't think this judge will be swayed by heartbreaking appeals, the judge has shown that she is interested in FACTS, which as you rightly pointed out earlier TB,  doctors/psychiatrists testimony would help considerably.

Beanie wrote:IMO Perhaps no medical evidence has been offered by the McCanns as it may show Kate was suffering from depression and anxiety before going to Portugal, hence the reason family and friends were continually offering their help.

Poe wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.

I don't think this judge will be swayed by heartbreaking appeals, the judge has shown that she is interested in FACTS, which as you rightly pointed out earlier TB,  doctors/psychiatrists testimony would help considerably.

In all these years Kate hasn't managed to make a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the kidnappers. 

"Madeleine's lovely" just isn't going to hack it. Perhaps she's planning to collapse in the courtroom while wailing plaintively, "Won't somebody think of her genitals!"

marxman wrote:Hypothetically speaking, could it be possible that this Crimewatch
reconstruction be nothing other than a damage limitation strategy
devised by extradition lawyers and a means to scupper any notion
of the perpetrators receiving a 'fair' trial?
By polluting public opinion world wide, creating conflicting opinions
based on untruths and conjecture and conjuring up an image of the
suspects being victims, may establish a situation were a trail may
not be possible.
I hope I'm wrong, but what say you?

Portia wrote:Could it be mistress Duarte missed the last courtroom sessions for being in the UK, finetuning the Crimewatch and Trial timetables with the McS extradition lawyers?

Tony Bennett wrote:Still no doctor being called to provide the necessary medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And quite clearly, the book did nothing whatsoever to hamper the search, because the good British taxpayer is coughing up £6k a DAY for over two years. 

Therefore, if the Judge has a single functioning brain cell, there can only be one verdict.

Cristobell wrote:

Portia wrote:Could it be mistress Duarte missed the last courtroom sessions for being in the UK, finetuning the Crimewatch and Trial timetables with the McS extradition lawyers?

Very surprised Isabel missed Court yesterday - thats really not a good sign, and I wonder if there has been a falling out?  Kate suddenly decides she wants to appear as a witness and her lead barrister has a day off?  

When's Goncalo's lawyer was indisposed the session was adjourned.

Harriet94 wrote:This is all new to me. I was surprised at the time that the McCanns' never seemed to accept that Madeleine might be dead. I assumed as health professionals they would have understood the painful reality of child abduction. I put their reaction down to the understandable and normal grief reaction of denial. I had not realised they had hired someone to look for a body.

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone read this?



"But requests to film the youngster’s bedroom, which has not been changed since she ­vanished, or inside their home were turned down".

I take this to mean the McCann's home and not the apartment

Not very obliging, are they? So strange.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ultimaThule wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand. 

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

According to reports, Kate applied under her maiden name so I doubt that will be an option. It's either both or neither IMO.

The fact they have filed using different surnames is irrevelant as it is known to the court that K&G are married to each other and they are enjoined as Plaintiffs together with the children of the marriage in a single action - if this were not the case, they would have each called their own witnesses to substantiate whatever part of their individual claim differed from the whole.

The judge is free to say yay or nay to either or both of them and her decision is what K&G and Dr Amaral will be required to abide by.

aiyoyo wrote:
Writs re: rights to peace and privacy.

gbwales wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Writs re: rights to peace and privacy.

Hence their inspired decision to have the trial held in public....  

Dishonest and manipulative to the last.

PeterMac wrote:If the BBC go ahead with the reconstruction and show Gerry going in through the open patio doors and the bedroom curtains open,
they will have shown the world, CONCLUSIVELY, that both parents LIED.
If on the other hand they show Gerry going in through the front door and the bedroom curtains closed,
they will have shown the world, CONCLUSIVELY, that both parents LIED.

Mmmm.   Tricky !

tegan1973 wrote:I really don't see the point of the Crimewatch broadcast:

1. If its not filmed in Portugal
2. If it is not even going to broadcast in Portugal
3. If the McCanns are not going to be part of a reconstruction
4. If the police in Portugal are not approving this and part of it

Seems very much a waste of time, as usual with this case.

melisande wrote:

tegan1973 wrote:I really don't see the point of the Crimewatch broadcast:

1. If its not filmed in Portugal
2. If it is not even going to broadcast in Portugal
3. If the McCanns are not going to be part of a reconstruction
4. If the police in Portugal are not approving this and part of it

Seems very much a waste of time, as usual with this case.

The Crimewatch broadcast doesn't normally use actual people involved.  Normally it is actors who take the part of the victims/witnesses with an interview/or voiceover of the actual people involved.  That aside, I don'tbelieve the timing of this is coincidental.  All smoke and mirrors imo