Re: Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

by worriedmum 28.03.14 11:28

''Kate's Page London Marathon 2013
 612 donations
Target: £20000.00
Raised: £21769.42 (plus Gift Aid)

Diane McCann
Paul Cameron
Patricia Cameron
Susan Healy
The Hubbards & Grandma Doris
Cat
Jo Youle
Matthew Oldfield
Rachel Oldfield
Phil McCann
Pam Gurney''

Who is Cat?

by Guest 28.03.14 11:29

I'd hazard a guess at one of the nannies who was in PDL but it could be anyone.

by Guest 28.03.14 12:01

Various McCann "hater" sites have been saying for a number of years now that the Tapas 7 are no longer visibly supporting the McCanns.

Add to that the low number of donations as Cristobel pointed out.

A cynic might suspect that some of the donations came from the McCanns themselves using fake names to save face and perhaps the names of the Tapas 7 were used in this way to show us we are wrong and that they are still close ...although not close enough to testify at a libel trial big grin

by ultimaThule 28.03.14 12:34

The McCanns' were not raising funds for their own private company but for the charity Missing People and, as such they appear to have been remarkably successful with Kate McCann having exceeded her target of £20,000 by £1,769.42, or 8% of the intended sum, and her spouse having raised £9,196.75 which is 129% more than his target sum of £4,000 due in large part to the generousity of Hugh Grant who donated £5,000.

With regard to the donors, all the usual suspects appear to have given together with a 'Cat' who is most probably not the famous Cuddlecat but Catriona Baker, ex-MW Kids' Club worker although, of course, this cannot be seen as an established fact.

by pennylane 28.03.14 14:41

And the Home Office (benevolent as ever with taxpayers' money), kindly gave £220,000 to the Missing People charity also.
services rendered perhaps ? nails

by Cristobell 28.03.14 16:20

Poe wrote:Various McCann "hater" sites have been saying for a number of years now that the Tapas 7 are no longer visibly supporting the McCanns.

Add to that the low number of donations as Cristobel pointed out.

A cynic might suspect that some of the donations came from the McCanns themselves using fake names to save face and perhaps the names of the Tapas 7 were used in this way to show us we are wrong and that they are still close ...although not close enough to testify at a libel trial

Unfortunately for the Tapas 7, they don't really have the option to walk away Poe. The statements imo, incriminate the lot them.

The McCanns probably have bumped up the numbers, they do it with their social network sites, so why stop there. The 'likes' on their facebook page show no sign of reality whatsoever.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 16:44

ultimaThule wrote:The McCanns' were not raising funds for their own private company but for the charity Missing People and, as such they appear to have been remarkably successful with Kate McCann having exceeded her target of £20,000 by £1,769.42, or 8% of the intended sum, and her spouse having raised £9,196.75 which is 129% more than his target sum of £4,000 due in large part to the generousity of Hugh Grant who donated £5,000.

With regard to the donors, all the usual suspects appear to have given together with a 'Cat' who is most probably not the famous Cuddlecat but Catriona Baker, ex-MW Kids' Club worker although, of course, this cannot be seen as an established fact.

I'm not seeing success there at all UT. This is a couple with over 500,000 'likes' on FB and who regularly appear on our TV screens and the front pages of our newspapers. As you say, the funds were for Missing People, not the McCann company, and they both appeared on wee Lorraine's sofa (National Television) to plug their 'Just Giving' pages.

All the usual suspects most certainly do not appear, and they are noted by their absence. Sponsoring someone is terrific way of showing you support them, so where were the celebrities who went to the 1000 day bash?

Whilst I agree with an earlier poster that there are a number of anonymous donors, I don't think that helps their case. Why don't people want to be seen supporting the McCanns?

Imo, the Marathon and the Triathlon were a PR disaster and one born of vanity. The McCanns have always claimed that the majority of the public support them, its only a tiny few headcases hidden away in their bedsits, that hate him, whenever there is a whiff of criticism Kate or Gerry point out that it is only a tiny minority who don't believe them, and who are they anyway.

The Lists told an entirely different story. In a way, they were that Opinion poll, that the McCanns hoped no-one would look at, because it laid bare the truth, that the tidal wave of support they had in 2007, is long gone.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 19:57

worriedmum wrote:''Kate's Page London Marathon 2013
 612 donations
Target: £20000.00
Raised: £21769.42 (plus Gift Aid)

Diane McCann
Paul Cameron
Patricia Cameron
Susan Healy
The Hubbards & Grandma Doris
Cat
Jo Youle
Matthew Oldfield
Rachel Oldfield
Phil McCann
Pam Gurney''

Who is Cat?

Cuddle ?

by plebgate 28.03.14 20:03

Or Cat burglar, can't be though or there would have been three Cats donating. big grin

by ultimaThule 28.03.14 22:55

Cristobell wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The McCanns' were not raising funds for their own private company but for the charity Missing People and, as such they appear to have been remarkably successful with Kate McCann having exceeded her target of £20,000 by £1,769.42, or 8% of the intended sum, and her spouse having raised £9,196.75 which is 129% more than his target sum of £4,000 due in large part to the generousity of Hugh Grant who donated £5,000.

With regard to the donors, all the usual suspects appear to have given together with a 'Cat' who is most probably not the famous Cuddlecat but Catriona Baker, ex-MW Kids' Club worker although, of course, this cannot be seen as an established fact.
I'm not seeing success there at all UT. This is a couple with over 500,000 'likes' on FB and who regularly appear on our TV screens and the front pages of our newspapers. As you say, the funds were for Missing People, not the McCann company, and they both appeared on wee Lorraine's sofa (National Television) to plug their 'Just Giving' pages.

All the usual suspects most certainly do not appear, and they are noted by their absence. Sponsoring someone is terrific way of showing you support them, so where were the celebrities who went to the 1000 day bash?

Whilst I agree with an earlier poster that there are a number of anonymous donors, I don't think that helps their case. Why don't people want to be seen supporting the McCanns?

Imo, the Marathon and the Triathlon were a PR disaster and one born of vanity. The McCanns have always claimed that the majority of the public support them, its only a tiny few headcases hidden away in their bedsits, that hate him, whenever there is a whiff of criticism Kate or Gerry point out that it is only a tiny minority who don't believe them, and who are they anyway.

The Lists told an entirely different story. In a way, they were that Opinion poll, that the McCanns hoped no-one would look at, because it laid bare the truth, that the tidal wave of support they had in 2007, is long gone.

The McCanns may appear regularly on your tv screen, Cristobell but, other than last October's Crimewatch, I can't recall the last time I saw them on tv 'in their own right', nor do their photos regularly adorn the front page of the daily newspaper I buy.

All of the "usual suspects", by which of course I mean the Tapas 7, are shown as having donated to their friends' sporting efforts for Missing People; the McCanns having long since been dropped by those A-listers who expressed their sympathies back in May 2007 and many other doors were closed to them both prior to, and on, the date they were made arguidios.

I do not find it at all surprising that some donors choose to remain anonymous. Having given to various causes via Just Giving, regardless of the sum I donate, 'anonymous' is my box of choice as I was raised to believe that, as with truly good manners, generousity should never draw attention to itself and, IME, just as hypocrisy is often called politeness, self-interest can hide behind what superfically may appear to be charitability.

IMO the McCanns should serve as an example to all who maintain that their truth is the only truth as their shortcomings will inevitably be exposed by those of us who are not easily fooled by charlatans of any persuasion.

by ultimaThule 28.03.14 23:43

plebgate wrote:Or Cat burglar, can't be though or there would have been three Cats donating.

It will be interesting to see if Cuddlecat, or one of his clones, gets the traditional airing on Amelie's way to church this Mothering Sunday, plebgate.

Sadly, Cc wasn't able to donate to his owner's parents' fundraising efforts for Missing People as Madleine's football money box ~~has long since been raided~~ is out of his reach on the mantlepiece of the Towers' baronial hall. big grin

by Guest 29.03.14 10:18

ultimaThule wrote:
plebgate wrote:Or Cat burglar, can't be though or there would have been three Cats donating.
It will be interesting to see if Cuddlecat, or one of his clones, gets the traditional airing on Amelie's way to church this Mothering Sunday, plebgate.

Sadly, Cc wasn't able to donate to his owner's parents' fundraising efforts for Missing People as Madleine's football money box ~~has long since been raided~~ is out of his reach on the mantlepiece of the Towers' baronial hall.

I notice that no dogs have donated.

But then again, they are notoriously unreliable big grin

by ultimaThule 29.03.14 10:35

Odd that, isn't it Poe? You'd think a few of those dogs Clarrie personally rescued from hellish lairs in Portugal would have had a whip round and made a donation as a token of their gratitude, wouldn't you? lol4

Now I come to think of it I can't recall seeing a donation from a CM. Maybe he was one of the anonymous givers of £1, but if he wasn't willing to donate the change on his nightstand this doesn't show the family source in a particularly good light as even Jo Youle, CEO of Missing People, was able to scrape together a tenner from her equally over-inflated renumeration package to cheer the organisation's Ambassador and her spouse on.

by Liz Eagles 29.03.14 10:46

ultimaThule wrote:Odd that, isn't it Poe? You'd think a few of those dogs Clarrie personally rescued from hellish lairs in Portugal would have had a whip round and made a donation as a token of their gratitude, wouldn't you?

Now I come to think of it I can't recall seeing a donation from a CM. Maybe he was one of the anonymous givers of £1, but if he wasn't willing to donate the change on his nightstand this doesn't show the family source in a particularly good light as even Jo Youle, CEO of Missing People, was able to scrape together a tenner from her equally over-inflated renumeration package to cheer the organisation's Ambassador and her spouse on.

Well as it's Gay Marriage Day today and Brighton has a very large gay population and Brighton is where Clarence is hoping to become an MP, he's been remarkably silent on Twitter about it all.

https://twitter.com/mitch_1uk

Is this a man who doesn't support anything?

https://twitter.com/mitch_1uk

by aiyoyo 05.04.14 13:40

I wonder what's causing the suspension of trial ?

Where does the complication lie? Must be more than the WOC issue.....I am thinking....

Surely it must be due to resume soon....

by **tigger** 05.04.14 20:12

aiyoyo wrote:I wonder what's causing the suspension of trial ?

Where does the complication lie? Must be more than the WOC issue.....I am thinking....

Surely it must be due to resume soon....

Remember it took some five months before the rogatory interviews finally took place.
The PJ complained about the hold ups engineered by the Home Office.
The Home Office blamed it on the PJ not filling the forms in cirrectly.
In fact it was all about keeping the McCanns out of the loop.

Imo they expected the Rogs to take place rather earlier, for the Rothley meeting was brought forward by a month.
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.

I'm wondering of something similar is going on.

Here is a link to 2008 - the delays are mentioned.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5147-february-march-2008

by **PeterMac** 05.04.14 22:58

tigger wrote:
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.

I think it cause ALL of those interviewed extreme problems.
They gibbered, prevaricated, demurred, lied, changed stories, ummm-ed, errrr-ed, blustered, changed the subject, answered questions which had not been asked instead of answering the one which had been,
prattled, babbled, rambled, drivelled, muttered, and mumbled.
Not one of them gave a coherent account of what had happened.
Not one of them was able to demonstrate their level of articulacy
Not one of them was able to show their educational capacity.

And from that we may reasonably deduce. .
Not one of them told the whole truth

by **tigger** 06.04.14 7:23

PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.
I think it cause ALL of those interviewed extreme problems.
They gibbered, prevaricated, demurred, lied, changed stories, ummm-ed, errrr-ed, blustered, changed the subject, answered questions which had not been asked instead of answering the one which had been,
prattled, babbled, rambled, drivelled, muttered, and mumbled.
Not one of them gave a coherent account of what had happened.
Not one of them was able to demonstrate their level of articulacy
Not one of them was able to show their educational capacity.

And from that we may reasonably deduce. .
Not one of them told the whole truth

Ah! i'd love to know how it worked. Was TM allowed to set the questions, or having requested the rogatories so friends and others could testify to their brilliant parenting, the form the questions took were not known in advance?

DP goes into automatic mode describing Maddie but bumbles nearly everywhere else. So had they hoped/ expected simple questions not the open ones they got so lost in trying to answer?
E.g. ' do you think the McCanns were good parents?' Is easy.
'Tell me about the holiday' isn't perhaps so easy. wink

Then we have the written rogatory statements, much shorter, the GP who has only met them once, the creche attendant in Rothley, all give very short and apparently factual statements but on closer inspection seem barely acquainted with either the McCanns or Maddie.

by aiyoyo 06.04.14 7:48

tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I wonder what's causing the suspension of trial ?

Where does the complication lie? Must be more than the WOC issue.....I am thinking....

Surely it must be due to resume soon....

Remember it took some five months before the rogatory interviews finally took place.
The PJ complained about the hold ups engineered by the Home Office.
The Home Office blamed it on the PJ not filling the forms in cirrectly.
In fact it was all about keeping the McCanns out of the loop.

Imo they expected the Rogs to take place rather earlier, for the Rothley meeting was brought forward by a month.
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.

I'm wondering of something similar is going on.

Here is a link to 2008 - the delays are mentioned.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5147-february-march-2008

Someone more au fait with law can enlighten us on time statute.
But from what I know once a trial has started and already in progress there is a statutory time statute on delay and suspension.
It can't be left postponed indefinitely.

There is a short time limit given for delay (for documents procurement) and longer time limit given for suspension (complication that needs more time) but it can't be left in limbo without a time structure, not when the trial is already open.

Unless an exceptional but valid reason calls for a contravention to the statutory time limit but that has to be subjected to both sides agreement and incumbent upon Judge to approve or overrule.

by lj 06.04.14 15:46

tigger wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.
I think it cause ALL of those interviewed extreme problems.
They gibbered, prevaricated, demurred, lied, changed stories, ummm-ed, errrr-ed, blustered, changed the subject, answered questions which had not been asked instead of answering the one which had been,
prattled, babbled, rambled, drivelled, muttered, and mumbled.
Not one of them gave a coherent account of what had happened.
Not one of them was able to demonstrate their level of articulacy
Not one of them was able to show their educational capacity.

And from that we may reasonably deduce. .
Not one of them told the whole truth

Ah! i'd love to know how it worked. Was TM allowed to set the questions, or having requested the rogatories so friends and others could testify to their brilliant parenting, the form the questions took were not known in advance?

DP goes into automatic mode describing Maddie but bumbles nearly everywhere else. So had they hoped/ expected simple questions not the open ones they got so lost in trying to answer?
E.g. ' do you think the McCanns were good parents?' Is easy.
'Tell me about the holiday' isn't perhaps so easy.

Then we have the written rogatory statements, much shorter, the GP who has only met them once, the creche attendant in Rothley, all give very short and apparently factual statements but on closer inspection seem barely acquainted with either the McCanns or Maddie.

IIRC indeed for the "witnesses" they put forward, the questions also came from them. I have no idea if the PJ could have added additional questions.

by aiyoyo 07.04.14 9:38

PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.
I think it cause ALL of those interviewed extreme problems.
They gibbered, prevaricated, demurred, lied, changed stories, ummm-ed, errrr-ed, blustered, changed the subject, answered questions which had not been asked instead of answering the one which had been,
prattled, babbled, rambled, drivelled, muttered, and mumbled.
Not one of them gave a coherent account of what had happened.
Not one of them was able to demonstrate their level of articulacy
Not one of them was able to show their educational capacity.

And from that we may reasonably deduce. .
Not one of them told the whole truth

And all these witnesses were professed as experts in their field, except for one phony psychologist.
Not one of them was fit for purpose, outdated yet vouching for clients not relevant for purpose.
They were collectively and totally inadequate.

by Doug D 07.04.14 11:18

I find it strange that there has been no comment regarding the ongoing delays from any of the ‘friendly chief reporters/transcripters’ out there, Astro, Anne Guedes or Joana Morais.

Even if they were unable to get any response from the court or find out anything new, I would still have expected this to have been reported at some stage over what is now a three month delay and wonder whether they have been ‘leaned on’.

Is anybody in any sort of contact with them to ask for an update, as even an ‘unable to find out anything about what is going on’ would be something?

by Guest 07.04.14 12:35

Doug D wrote:I find it strange that there has been no comment regarding the ongoing delays from any of the ‘friendly chief reporters/transcripters’ out there, Astro, Anne Guedes or Joana Morais.

Even if they were unable to get any response from the court or find out anything new, I would still have expected this to have been reported at some stage over what is now a three month delay and wonder whether they have been ‘leaned on’.

Is anybody in any sort of contact with them to ask for an update, as even an ‘unable to find out anything about what is going on’ would be something?

Second your post. It's exactly three months ago that the libel trials closing arguments were expected to be held.
Come on pt-comrades, make a telephone call to one of the defendants and find out what's going on.
Not such a big deal, Joana, as you are running a forum which carries her name!
It's your country, your language,
just please inform us.

parapono

by ultimaThule 07.04.14 14:09

If, as I suspect, the Court/judge is 'evaluating' the Wardship, it's unlikely there will be anything to report for some time as the ponderous nature of communication between the courts of different countries, together with the need for all documents to be translated, can be a lengthy process and additional time will be required to give all of the information received due consideration in law.

by ultimaThule 07.04.14 14:50

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
Crib sheets were handed out imo but the long delay caused a number of those interviewed some problems, such a big gap between getting the instructions and the interviews.
I think it cause ALL of those interviewed extreme problems.
They gibbered, prevaricated, demurred, lied, changed stories, ummm-ed, errrr-ed, blustered, changed the subject, answered questions which had not been asked instead of answering the one which had been,
prattled, babbled, rambled, drivelled, muttered, and mumbled.
Not one of them gave a coherent account of what had happened.
Not one of them was able to demonstrate their level of articulacy
Not one of them was able to show their educational capacity.

And from that we may reasonably deduce. .
Not one of them told the whole truth

And all these witnesses were professed as experts in their field, except for one phony psychologist.
Not one of them was fit for purpose, outdated yet vouching for clients not relevant for purpose.
They were collectively and totally inadequate.

If you go back to tigger's post on Saturday, part of which PeterMac 'snipped' in the above, you'll see that it is the rogatory interviewees who are under scrutiny, aiyoyo.

However, what PeterMac has written (above) can, at least in part, be ascribed to the McCanns' libel trial witnesses, none of whom appeared to be able to testify to much more than hearsay and all of whom appeared to have been rehearsed prior to their appearance in court to ensure they would all sing from the same hymnbewk, namely Exhibit KH1, self-styled unqualified 'psychologist' Alan Pike unsuccessfuly attempted to read to the Court in lieu of having to use his own words, and one hand copied page of which was found in the possession of 'internet monitor' Michael Wright.

Had this thead not deviated from its title, it was my hope that we would be able to spend some time scrutinising the various testimonies with a view to making comparisons between them and quantifying the value, if any, of the evidence the McCanns' put forward to support their plaint, albeit that the specific claims therein do not appear to be in the public domain.

In addtion, I hoped that we would be able to undertake our own evaluation of the implication(s) the Wardship issue may have on the trial.

As it is, all that can be concluded from the plaintiffs' list of witnesses is that none of their group of pals, known here as the Tapas 7, who were on holiday with them when their eldest daughter disappeared, was either willing to testify on their behalf or was thought not competent to do so in these particular civil proceedings.

Nevertheless, it would seem to me that in the event of proceedings being brought in the criminal courts, the witnesses for the defence will not differ greatly from those who took the stand in Lisbon.

Log in for more topics