Re: Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

by Guest 03.01.14 13:35

Cristobell wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
sallypelt wrote:I don't know how much truth is in this, but this was tweeted within the last few minutes:

@scrantlings LizzyF 7m
“@skymartinbrunt: #madeleine Kate and Gerry McCann refused permission to give evidence next week in Lisbon libel trial #McCann

Edited to confirm that it has been tweeted on Martin Brunt's Twitter page

What a shame! I would have liked to have heard what they had to say. I wonder if Goncalo Amaral has also had his request refused?

Wasn't it written evidence that the McCann's wanted to give?

I thought they wanted to go in the witness box Sally, but I may be wrong. It would have made great theatre, which might be the reason the Judge turned them down.

Conveniently forgetting to tell people that they were NOT on the 'witness' list at any time.

And conveniently 'forgetting' that they could have 'over ruled' their lawyer ID and gone into the witness box on the very first day, if they had wanted to be heard 'personally'

Another example of their crazy risk taking I think Jean. They will of course use this to say the Portuguese hate them (because of Goncalo Amaral) and they weren't given a fair trial. As you say, the fact that it was always within their power to give evidence in the witness box will probably be overlooked.

But they were never the ones on trial - Amaral was. They chose their own witnesses and for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to exercise their right to appear on the stand. If the judge denies both the McCanns and Amaral the right to be heard at this late stage, I don't see how either party can complain they have been unjustly treated. They knew the rules at the beginning.

by cass7 03.01.14 13:37

tiny wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:I assume the judge has heard enough. If the Mc's were unable to produce professionally qualified witnesses to back up their claims then their own personal statements will add nothing. I am glad they have been denied the opportunity for more media manipulation because the press would have been all over it.
Can you imagine what the press will write about this now.poor mccanns and more poor mccanns.

they had no intention of going on the stand it was all a bluff ,so I am for one disappionted that they are not allowed to speak.tiny im with you on this one - none stop pity party for months and months

by cass7 03.01.14 13:38

cocked up quote - it will be buckets at the ready too omg

by tiny 03.01.14 13:55

Any one know if Mr Amaral has been refused too

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.14 14:09

Daily Express already covering this:

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

The McCanns are 'DISAPPOINTED' and believe they have 'THE RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE'.

Express says Goncalo Amaral won't be able to give evidence in his own defence either.

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

by Guest 03.01.14 14:17

Tony Bennett wrote:

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

He's not wrong.

by jeanmonroe 03.01.14 14:17

But they were never the ones on trial - Amaral was.
--------------------------------------------------------

was, is, he?

I believe the libel action (civil) puts the onus on the party, in this case the McCanns and their THREE children, bringing the action to establish the un-truth of allegations made. In the UK, the onus is the other way; on the party accused of libel to establish the truth of a statement alleged to libel.

by cass7 03.01.14 14:18

the express at least have said that everything ga has said is in the files - hope that people go looking for the files - also the abduction is long gone to missing spin

by Guest 03.01.14 14:21

cass7 wrote:the express at least have said that everything ga has said is in the files - hope that people go looking for the files - also the abduction is long gone to missing

They also cite the injunction against the book whilst failing to mention it's subsequent reversal.

by plebgate 03.01.14 14:21

jeanmonroe wrote:Cristobell wrote:
As you say, the fact that it was always within their power to give evidence in the witness box will probably be overlooked.
____________________________________________________________

NOT BY US FORUM 'NUTTERS'!

Agreed.

I still cannot quite believe that the witnesses were asked and agreed to speak on their behalf.

by jeanmonroe 03.01.14 14:23

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That will be the 'damage that has been caused to the search' by SY/MET witholding an e-fit of a POI that could have led to the possible recovery of their daughter, for 2 years 2 months!

by plebgate 03.01.14 14:24

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

He's not wrong.

so why didn't they swim the channel, run and ride the whole distance if need be at the beginning of the hearing to let everyone know?

by Okeydokey 03.01.14 14:27

LORRAINE: Now, Kate, it must have been a terrible shorck for you to discover the Portugese authorities were nort going to allow you the chance to give evidence in your own libel trial. What were they thinking? How unfair is that! It must have come as a real blow to you both, but you in particular Kate...

KATE: Well erm you know [Squeezes Gerry's hand] it was erm difficult. Because this is not just about an abducted child, you know it's also about...

GERRY: ...the right to speak up about injustice. We've always supported the right of people to speak up, not to spread lies of course...that's why we support families of missing children who have been falsely accused even though there's no evidence...in many cases for years and years until the child is found again...

Well I can hear the interview!

by Guest 03.01.14 14:28

jeanmonroe wrote:But they were never the ones on trial - Amaral was.
--------------------------------------------------------

was, is, he?

I believe the libel action (civil) puts the onus on the party, in this case the McCanns and their THREE children, bringing the action to establish the un-truth of allegations made. In the UK, the onus is the other way; on the party accused of libel to establish the truth of a statement alleged to libel.

I know that, Jean, but the McCanns are the ones who brought the case, and they brought it against Amaral. However, having done so it is up to them to make their case and if they really thought it so important to their argument that they give evidence in person, it is baffling that they waited until they no longer had the automatic right to be heard to apply to do this. I wonder what they say has changed since their initial decision not to appear? Whatever it is, presumably the judge does not think that anything they have to add will change anything.

by plebgate 03.01.14 14:30

the judge might have allowed a last minute witness had it been a doctor/psychiatrist who could give evidence of the damage to their health blah blah they have suffered?

by cass7 03.01.14 14:30

oh the pity party has begun - thing is how many press and tv people will turn up to the mcanns party - hope there is another party if ga wins

by Guest 03.01.14 14:35

Tony Bennett wrote:

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

Why does he feel the need to prefix "Kate" with the words "My wife"? Is there another significant "Kate" in his life? His girlfriend? His pet budgie?

by cass7 03.01.14 14:38

Poe wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

Why does he feel the need to prefix "Kate" with the words "My wife"? Is there another significant "Kate" in his life? His girlfriend? His pet budgie?

maybe he has read forum gossip that they are no longer together big grin

by jeanmonroe 03.01.14 14:49

Tony Bennett wrote:Daily Express already covering this:

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

The McCanns are 'DISAPPOINTED' and believe they have 'THE RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE'.

Express says Goncalo Amaral won't be able to give evidence in his own defence either.

Quote, Dr Gerald McCann:

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."

The couple wanted to take the stand to give explain how Amaral's book about the Madeleine case had left them devastated.

"HAD"??? or 'still has', or 'doesn't NOW'? (leave them 'devastated')

The libel trial began last September and had has heard how Mrs McCann contemplated suicide after Amaral's book was published.
British psychologist Alan Pike, who counselled Madeleine's mother, said she confessed to secret "dark thoughts" about suicide after the book came out.

Clarence Mitchell said: "It is beyond offensive to suggest Kate #McCann is suicidal. SHE IS NOT" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Sep 22, 2013 11:31:27 GMT

by jeanmonroe 03.01.14 15:20

"My wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced and what we have gone through especially when that nasty foreign reporter asked us"

"What evidence do you have that there was an abduction"?

"And my wife Kate told him, because she knew, she was there, she found my daughter gone. She knew more than he did. She knew what she saw, including the 'smashed shutters' she told Jon about, 5 hours later, which i and the MW resort manager, Mr Hill, didn't personally see when i and others were raising and lowering them, from outside, with our bare hands without leaving a single 'fingerprint' of ours on them."

"So, my wife Kate and I know better than anyone else what........"

by Tangled Web 03.01.14 16:59

Re The Express article.

There's that 'disgraced' word again.

On the upside, the general public now know the book is called 'The Truth of the Lie' (and it was a bestseller - 120,000 copies sold), there's also a documentary to watch (already watched by 2.2 million people), they now know Amaral thinks MM died in the apartment and that the McCann's faked her abduction and all of the police files have been made public.

Think the numbers on pro-MM Facebook groups and fora are set to rise again...

by suzyjohnson 03.01.14 17:38

I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

by Seek truth 03.01.14 17:40

Tangled Web wrote:Re The Express article.

There's that 'disgraced' word again.

On the upside, the general public now know the book is called 'The Truth of the Lie' (and it was a bestseller - 120,000 copies sold), there's also a documentary to watch (already watched by 2.2 million people), they now know Amaral thinks MM died in the apartment and that the McCann's faked her abduction and all of the police files have been made public.

Think the numbers on pro-MM Facebook groups and fora are set to rise again...

Yes

They're calling him the disgraced cop, in other words disgraced would then also be the British police who also
didn't believe the mccanns in the beginning, the British sniffer dogs and THE POLICE FILES that are pasted all over the Internet for The whole world to see!

Wonder if the mccanns knew that Portugal was going to put the files on the Internet? Who's disgraced now?
tongue

by sallypelt 03.01.14 17:41

suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And let's not forget that lawyers do not work for nothing, and with the fund website "updating" how can they be sure they will get paid.

Just a thought!

by Guest 03.01.14 17:49

tiny wrote:Any one know if Mr Amaral has been refused too

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 1h
Goncalo Amaral is also barred from giving evidence at #mccann libel trial which resumes in Lisbon on Tuesday with lawyers' closing remarks

by Montclair 03.01.14 17:50

Cristobell wrote:[copied over from other thread]

Portia wrote:If so, here we have a ground for the appeal: we were not heard so we had no fair trail

I don't know if they will get away with that Portia as originally they were not going to appear, Gerry requested permission halfway through when he realised how badly their case was going. They are probably bitterly disappointed - egotists that they are, they probably believed a last minute plea to the Judge would erase all the crap she has heard so far and turn things around.

So if no more witnesses are to be heard, the final day will just consist of the Summing up by the lawyers for each party, as I understand it.

According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak. Therefore, there would have been no ground for appeal whatsoever.

by Miraflores 03.01.14 17:56

I notice how the Express talks about the McCanns getting Amiral's book banned, but not a word about the ban being overturned. Typical of our Press.

by Guest 03.01.14 18:24

Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can.
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.14 18:28

Montclair wrote:
According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

by sallypelt 03.01.14 18:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Montclair wrote:
According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?