Re: Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

by Liz Eagles 14.04.14 16:55

ultimaThule wrote:The problem I have with your 'fair questions', aquila, is that you do not appear to be interested in any answers I provide, nor do you acknowledge them.

For examples of what constitutes a 'diatribe', I would suggest you look elsewhere as my answer to your earlier question is complete in itself and consists of only two brief paragraphs.

I see we are back to the level of the playground again and semantics abound.

May I suggest you ignore anything I have to say and answer other people's questions if that suits you better. I'm not the only person to ask questions.

I believe Ladyinred has asked you one on another thread which is left unanswered.

by Guest 14.04.14 17:04

PeterMac wrote:

I think everyone else, (apart from some deranged internet nutters - obviously) has followed the evidence uncovered by the investigations and the views of the various professional Police officers of several countries, and has tended towards accident.

Though I almost always agree with the most you post, why is not tending towards an accident a symptom of deranged nuttery? Apart from unfounded direct accusations of murder, of course.

by ultimaThule 14.04.14 17:06

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The problem I have with your 'fair questions', aquila, is that you do not appear to be interested in any answers I provide, nor do you acknowledge them.

For examples of what constitutes a 'diatribe', I would suggest you look elsewhere as my answer to your earlier question is complete in itself and consists of only two brief paragraphs.
I see we are back to the level of the playground again and semantics abound.

May I suggest you ignore anything I have to say and answer other people's questions if that suits you better. I'm not the only person to ask questions.

I believe Ladyinred has asked you one on another thread which is left unanswered

In the interests of preventing any further disruption of this and other threads, I will gladly adopt your suggestion and ignore your responses here and elsewhere, aquila.

If I have overlooked a question from Lir this will have been caused by my attention having been diverted by matters such as this and I will now seek to find the other thread you refer to and answer whatever question has been set for me to the best of my ability.

by xertial 14.04.14 17:09

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The problem I have with your 'fair questions', aquila, is that you do not appear to be interested in any answers I provide, nor do you acknowledge them.

For examples of what constitutes a 'diatribe', I would suggest you look elsewhere as my answer to your earlier question is complete in itself and consists of only two brief paragraphs.
I see we are back to the level of the playground again and semantics abound.

May I suggest you ignore anything I have to say and answer other people's questions if that suits you better. I'm not the only person to ask questions.

I believe Ladyinred has asked you one on another thread which is left unanswered.

------------------------------------------
Aquila - this is quoted from above (your response in full)

"I'm sorry uT, once again I don't understand this as it seems to be only your opinion as it's not qualified by anything. It's a statement which is clearly only an opinion.

You'll have to forgive me for challenging it but there is no substance to it let alone no account made for the fact that what happened to Madeleine was in Portugal and no reference made to Portuguese law or for that matter UK law."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Aquila - I am also confused. I don't see a single question mark in your exchange - or even where one would be placed.

It's a statement, which is clearly only an opinion.

You'll have to forgive me for challenging it, but there is no substance to it...... just an opinion of an opinion, with an attempt to derail.

Candyfloss - please accept my apologies in advance, and I shall give myself a 'time out'.

Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed - Page 22 Empty

by Liz Eagles 14.04.14 17:33

xertial wrote:
aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The problem I have with your 'fair questions', aquila, is that you do not appear to be interested in any answers I provide, nor do you acknowledge them.

For examples of what constitutes a 'diatribe', I would suggest you look elsewhere as my answer to your earlier question is complete in itself and consists of only two brief paragraphs.
I see we are back to the level of the playground again and semantics abound.

May I suggest you ignore anything I have to say and answer other people's questions if that suits you better. I'm not the only person to ask questions.

I believe Ladyinred has asked you one on another thread which is left unanswered.
------------------------------------------
Aquila - this is quoted from above (your response in full)

"I'm sorry uT, once again I don't understand this as it seems to be only your opinion as it's not qualified by anything. It's a statement which is clearly only an opinion.

You'll have to forgive me for challenging it but there is no substance to it let alone no account made for the fact that what happened to Madeleine was in Portugal and no reference made to Portuguese law or for that matter UK law."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Aquila - I am also confused. I don't see a single question mark in your exchange - or even where one would be placed.

It's a statement, which is clearly only an opinion.

You'll have to forgive me for challenging it, but there is no substance to it...... just an opinion of an opinion, with an attempt to derail.

Candyfloss - please accept my apologies in advance, and I shall give myself a 'time out'.

awww it's ok. It's the usual thing for people to come to the aid of uT. People who don't contribute to the forum much that is.

My concern is that when statements are made as fact with no substance other than 'I can't tell you for fear of being outed, I'm only on here to give you plebs the benefit of my experience, lend me your ears and trust me 'cos I'm tellin the truth but don't question me as my privacy prevents me from qualifying anything' then it is only opinion.

I could write any old thing with that excuse and so could you.

by Guest 14.04.14 17:36

ultimaThule wrote:Perhaps it should be made clear that the clip you've linked to (above) of Gerry emerging from Portimao police station having been declared an arguido (person of interest) by the Policia Judiciaria is from 7 September 2007, Chatelaine. [...]

***
I posted the clip as a [helpful?] reaction to Doug's comment just above mine
quote
But last time round was it not the McC’s that actually broke the arguido story, with KM then trying to blame the press for intrusion etc?
unquote

I think it is obvious to any attentive reader of this forum, that this was indeed September 2007 on the day that their lawyer declared that both McCanns were made arguido and the world & his dog and Sky were there to watch it winkwink

by Liz Eagles 14.04.14 17:39

ultimaThule wrote:
aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The problem I have with your 'fair questions', aquila, is that you do not appear to be interested in any answers I provide, nor do you acknowledge them.

For examples of what constitutes a 'diatribe', I would suggest you look elsewhere as my answer to your earlier question is complete in itself and consists of only two brief paragraphs.
I see we are back to the level of the playground again and semantics abound.

May I suggest you ignore anything I have to say and answer other people's questions if that suits you better. I'm not the only person to ask questions.

I believe Ladyinred has asked you one on another thread which is left unanswered
In the interests of preventing any further disruption of this and other threads, I will gladly adopt your suggestion and ignore your responses here and elsewhere, aquila.

If I have overlooked a question from Lir this will have been caused by my attention having been diverted by matters such as this and I will now seek to find the other thread you refer to and answer whatever question has been set for me to the best of my ability.

AndyB asked questions too if you'd like to answer those.

by Doug D 14.04.14 18:47

Yes thank you Châtelaine.

‘I posted the clip as a [helpful?] reaction to Doug's comment just above mine’
quote
But last time round was it not the McC’s that actually broke the arguido story, with KM then trying to blame the press for intrusion etc?

As you say, the date is obvious to any thread reader. It’s in a completely different context to when, for example, someone starts a new thread with a 2007 Daily Mail story, which looks as if it’s todays news.

by ultimaThule 14.04.14 18:54

Châtelaine wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Perhaps it should be made clear that the clip you've linked to (above) of Gerry emerging from Portimao police station having been declared an arguido (person of interest) by the Policia Judiciaria is from 7 September 2007, Chatelaine. [...]
***
I posted the clip as a [helpful?] reaction to Doug's comment just above mine
quote
But last time round was it not the McC’s that actually broke the arguido story, with KM then trying to blame the press for intrusion etc?
unquote

I think it is obvious to any attentive reader of this forum, that this was indeed September 2007 on the day that their lawyer declared that both McCanns were made arguido and the world & his dog and Sky were there to watch it

There's no question that posting the clip was a helpful act on your part, Chatelaine, and in dating it my only intention was to provide clarification for not so attentive onlookers and new members of this forum who may be persuaded to believe from reading certain responses on this thread that the McCanns' status as arguidos from 7 September-21 July 2008 has been re-imposed on them surreptitiously.

IMO the possibility that the PJ will re-impose arguidos status on the McCanns is as unlikely as them, and/or their various 'family' and other 'sources', observing Portugal's rule of judicial secrecy in such matters. smilie

by **tigger** 14.04.14 19:12

PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:
As to the last - bolded paragraph above, as far as I know the parents are NOT 'suspects for her murder'. It is dangerous to make such statements, especially here. Dangerous for the forum I mean.
If they were made arguidos it would be in the press. the Portuguese are very keen on their democratic laws.
As I recall the only people who have ever mentioned Murder were the McCanns themseelves
"Find the body and prove we killed her" Gerry
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."' Kate

I think everyone else, (apart from some deranged internet nutters - obviously) has followed the evidence uncovered by the investigations and the views of the various professional Police officers of several countries, and has tended towards accident.

This is the line I referred to PeterMac in full, I think it is a statement of fact and not a supposition. Therefore not good for the forum.

now deleted in original post so deleted so as not to repeat.

by Guest 14.04.14 19:38

@ Tigger thank you for bringing that to my attention, after missing it. thanks

It has been deleted now.

by AndyB 14.04.14 19:44

candyfloss wrote:@ Tigger thank you for bringing that to my attention, after missing it. It has been deleted now.

Why? BHH has talked about the possibility that Madeleine was murdered and AR has confirmed both that abduction isn't the only one of enquiry that they have and that Madeleine might have not left 5A alive.

by aiyoyo 14.04.14 21:10

"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?

Kate did mention "murder" so make of it what you will....

by AndyB 14.04.14 21:23

aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?

It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

by Guest 14.04.14 21:31

AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?
It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

You know perfectly well why. I suggest you go back and read again.

by Guest 14.04.14 21:49

It IS a forum myth. Gerry never said that: "Find the body and prove we killed her" !
I will search for the source, but IIRC it is a "source" probably "close to the family", who said that.
Pfew. Feels like Groundhog Day sometimes ... No offense meant, but ...

ETA it seems it was the Daily Express, which published this September 2007.
I'll be back tomorrow. Real life's calling, dogs to be fed, silken sheets calling ... yawn

by canada12 14.04.14 21:58

	Original Source: EXPRESS: THURSDAY 13-SEPTEMBER 2007
	Thursday September 13,2007 By Padraic Flanagan in Praia da Luz

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/Express-13-09-07.htm

[ETA: Difficult to tell from this story whether Gerry and Kate said it - probably unlikely - or if the Daily Express extrapolated that they might have said this if given the opportunity, or if the "close friend" provided the quote to the newspaper. It's definitely implied Gerry and / or Kate said it, though. ]

THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann yesterday challenged the police: "Find the body and prove we killed her."

The couple, who are suspected over the child's death and the disposal her body, issued the startling ultimatum as the public prosecutor in Portugal sent the police case against them to a judge.

It is thought that the McCanns' high-powered lawyers have told them that without a body it will be extremely difficult for the authorities to press charges.

A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: 'Where is the body? Where is the evidence that Madeleine is dead? We have got no idea'."

The change in the family's tone – just days after the McCanns were still pleading for the search for Madeleine to continue – surprised sources close to the investigation.

"It seems remarkable that just days after the McCanns were saying they thought Madeleine was still alive and missing, now they're talking about a body," a source said. "I don’t know if this is really the McCanns speaking or just one of the people working on their publicity campaign but it is not the kind of comment to impress a team of detectives who think you’re guilty."

The case against the McCanns detailed in the dossier of evidence now before Judge Pedro Miguel dos Anjos Frias appears to rest mainly on potentially damaging forensic test results.

These are said to include Madeleine's DNA in traces of bodily fluid, as well as a mass of hair, discovered in the McCanns' hire car which was rented 25 days after she went missing on May 3.

Portugal's attorney general Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro has indicated the police investigation into Kate and Gerry, both 39-year-old doctors, has not ended and suggested stricter bail conditions could be imposed on the couple.

Public prosecutor Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses, based at Portimao on the Algarve, on Tuesday ordered the 10 lever-arch police files in the case to go before the judge.

Mr Jose Pinto Monteiro announced last night that he was appointing a second public prosecutor to the case.

Luis Bilro Verao, from the Evora district in central Portugal, will oversee the work of Portimao-based Mr Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses.

A friend of the McCanns said the family had been advised that the prosecutor was probably either seeking further guidance from the judge or applying for the authority to carry out more searches. The friend said the McCanns' new legal team, based in London, was working around the clock to "get up to speed on the case".

The McCanns' Portuguese lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, yesterday hit out at Portugal’s justice system in a scathing interview with a local newspaper.

"It is more appropriate to break down the patience of a believer and the reputation of an innocent man than to identify those responsible," he said.

A family friend said the speculation appeared to be taking its toll on the McCanns, who left Praia da Luz to return to their family home in Leicestershire at the weekend.

The source said: "Two days ago Gerry was telling everyone: 'I'm as strong as an ox'. Yesterday he was not quite as ebullient. They fear they will be summoned back at some stage.

They are innocent; they did not kill Madeleine and dispose of her body." It was expected that fresh searches would be ordered in Praia da Luz. Policia Judiciaria spokesman Olegario Sousa refused to confirm or deny the sites, but there was no sign of searches at the church yesterday.

Gerry's brother John McCann said: "There is so much speculation going on as to what the actual information the Portuguese police have.

"If they have got something that suggests Madeleine really is dead then for goodness sake tell the family who have the strongest feeling for this."

by **PeterMac** 14.04.14 22:07

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/Express-13-09-07.htm
or here
http://web.archive.org/web/20071221085316/http:/www.express.co.uk/posts/view/19042/Find-the-body-and-prove-we-killed-her
[quote]Thursday September 13,2007
By Padraic Flanagan in Praia da Luz
Have your say(24)
THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann yesterday challenged the police: “Find the body and prove we killed her”
The couple, who are suspected over the childÂ’s death and the disposal of her body, issued the startling ultimatum as the public prosecutor in Portugal sent the police case against them to a judge.Â

It is thought that the McCannsÂ’ high-powered lawyers have told them that without a body it will be extremely difficult for the authorities to press charges.Â

Where is the evidence that Madeleine is dead
A close friend said: Â“The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: Â‘Where is the body? Where is the evidence that Madeleine is dead? We have got no ideaÂ’.Â”Â

The change in the familyÂ’s tone Â– just days after the McCanns were still pleading for the search for Madeleine to continue Â– surprised sources close to the investigation.Â
[/quote

by AndyB 14.04.14 22:13

candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?
It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

You know perfectly well why. I suggest you go back and read again.

I seriously don't know why and I can't read it again because you've deleted it. Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to be disruptive or confrontational but I am genuinely concerned about some of the moderation that goes on here)

by Guest 14.04.14 22:28

Candyfloss that still shows up in some replies with quotes btw,not sure if you can edit those though.

by Guest 14.04.14 22:29

AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?
It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

You know perfectly well why. I suggest you go back and read again.
I seriously don't know why and I can't read it again because you've deleted it. Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to be disruptive or confrontational but I am genuinely concerned about some of the moderation that goes on here)

Two words deleted and are easy to guess. If not I suggest you ask in a pm. Nice to know you are so genuinely concerned about the moderation...........shame you don't show such concern for the forum but would rather see libellous posts left.

by Guest 14.04.14 22:30

Bellisa wrote:Candyfloss that still shows up in some replies with quotes btw,not sure if you can edit those though.

Thank you Bellisa, and I am sure AndyB has read them as well. winkwink

by AndyB 14.04.14 23:00

candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?
It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

You know perfectly well why. I suggest you go back and read again.
I seriously don't know why and I can't read it again because you've deleted it. Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to be disruptive or confrontational but I am genuinely concerned about some of the moderation that goes on here)

Two words deleted and are easy to guess. If not I suggest you ask in a pm. Nice to know you are so genuinely concerned about the moderation...........shame you don't show such concern for the forum but would rather see libellous posts left.

It's your understanding of libel that I find confusing. You seem to have no problem with people describing the McCanns as liars (libellous) or narcissists (libellous) but you do have a problem if the comment is outwith your world view paradigm, irrespective of whether it's actually libellous or not. Sorry but real world parents kill their kids and others offer them up for grown ups to rape them. You can moderate away anyone who believes this and makes the point without accusing named individuals as "libel" but that isn't necessarily the case.

by Guest 14.04.14 23:09

AndyB wrote: [...] You seem to have no problem with people describing the McCanns as liars (libellous) [...]

***
You woke me up, Andy. As you can see, I deleted some of your post and only comment to the above part: the McCanns ARE proven liars. It's documented in their police statements and in the wealth of their newspaper and television interviews. It doesn't need too much of intellect to see that. If contradicting themselves is not lying,I don't know what else it would take ...

by Guest 14.04.14 23:11

AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:"Find the body and prove we killed her " Gerry. Has it been proven he said it or just forum myth ?
It's not a forum myth. It would be good if we could have an explanation for a perfectly reasonable point being delete but I doubt we'll get one beyond the inconsistent and disengenuous claims of libel.

You know perfectly well why. I suggest you go back and read again.
I seriously don't know why and I can't read it again because you've deleted it. Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to be disruptive or confrontational but I am genuinely concerned about some of the moderation that goes on here)

Two words deleted and are easy to guess. If not I suggest you ask in a pm. Nice to know you are so genuinely concerned about the moderation...........shame you don't show such concern for the forum but would rather see libellous posts left.
It's your understanding of libel that I find confusing. You seem to have no problem with people describing the McCanns as liars (libellous) or narcissists (libellous) but you do have a problem if the comment is outwith your world view paradigm, irrespective of whether it's actually libellous or not. Sorry but real world parents kill their kids and others offer them up for grown ups to rape them. You can moderate away anyone who believes this and makes the point without accusing named individuals as "libel" but that isn't necessarily the case.

I don't have to understand anything and I'm not a lawyer. I just moderate here for free as best I can and to the best of my ability. Now, I have replied to your pm, given you answers, and suggest that if this forum is not run the way you like it then it is your prerogative to go elsewhere. This thread has been disrupted enough.