Re: McCanns to appear in libel trial on Monday 16 June

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 14:26

Of all the reasons Posters came up with as possible reason for their absence, nothing can beat their
infamous classical one:
"Kate & Gerry have been advised (by police) not to go"
..........delivered unfailingly through the Pink fang.

by Cristobell 13.06.14 14:33

worriedmum wrote:Delayed by having to pick up a drunk in the road 100/1

Or

220/1 saving a cardiac patient by diverting the flight to South America?

by ShuBob 13.06.14 14:33

Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?

by **PeterMac** 13.06.14 14:37

ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?

No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally.
totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

by plebgate 13.06.14 14:38

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:Our passports are in the passport office.

Surprisingly not as far fetched as you might think
Gerry's passport expires Sept 2014, so he could have been thinking ahead and sent it off . . .
Worth a try anyway

I'm sure CM would be able to sort something out with all their connections.

by Cristobell 13.06.14 14:40

Hicks wrote:SY go digging in Praia Da Luz on the 3rd June for eight days (wonder why this time?) They are looking for evidence that Madeleine may have been killed and her body buried in the area . This comes after reviewing the case files and also the public appeal for new information. They don't find any evidence of a body. SY go home.

The McCann's come out to say," see, we told you that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has come to any harm.

The libel trail starts Monday 16th.

Umm....now if I were a conspiracy theorist.......

Don't really think that will work Hicks, though they will of course go with it. The police are clearly looking for a body that they didn't find it in those particular locations doesn't mean anything really, which makes us wonder what intelligence they had, and why the need to pack up and return to the UK a day early? (I am right on that 'extra day' aren't I? didn't they have until the end of the week?). In any event, there were no requests for more time. I am sure they will twist though to reinforce the 'Maddie is alive' myth.

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 14:42

ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?

No, they don't. In this event Dr Amaral will no doubt make his statement to the court, after which the judge will hear closing arguments for both sides before reserving her verdict to a later date, taking into account the 30 days the McCanns have been given to submit documentation showing that they have permission to claim damages for Madeleine who is a Ward of a UK court. .

by MaybeMaybenot 13.06.14 14:44

Perhaps the passport fiasco was put out there so Gerry can say its stuck amongst the thousands

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 14:46

plebgate wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:Our passports are in the passport office.

Surprisingly not as far fetched as you might think
Gerry's passport expires Sept 2014, so he could have been thinking ahead and sent it off . . .
Worth a try anyway
I'm sure CM would be able to sort something out with all their connections.

Phone convo between Gerry and Theresa May.

Gerry : "Hello, Mrs May, can you get onto the immigration to expedite my passport, we absolutely have to attend the libel in Portugal on Monday"

Theresa: "OK, Special Branch will deliver it to your home within 24 hours.
Best of luck to you!"

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 14:48

MaybeMaybenot wrote:Perhaps the passport fiasco was put out there so Gerry can say its stuck amongst the thousands

I suspect this is a tongue-in-cheek conspiracy theory ~~too far~~ on your part, Maybe, as I have no doubt that, if stuck in the backlog, the wee one's passport application can be located and fast tracked in time for Monday morning.

by **PeterMac** 13.06.14 14:49

aiyoyo wrote:
plebgate wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:Our passports are in the passport office.

Surprisingly not as far fetched as you might think
Gerry's passport expires Sept 2014, so he could have been thinking ahead and sent it off . . .
Worth a try anyway
I'm sure CM would be able to sort something out with all their connections.

Phone convo between Gerry and Theresa May.
Gerry : "Hello, Mrs May, can you get onto the immigration to expedite my passport, we absolutely have to attend the libel in Portugal on Monday"
Theresa: "OK, Special Branch will deliver it to your home within 24 hours.
Best of luck to you!"

Surely the other way round
Gerry : can you organise a massive blockage in the entire Passport system of the whole country so that there is no way I can get to Portugal, and no one can blame me . . .
May: For you, Anything ! Consider it done.

by SchrodingersBody 13.06.14 14:50

2-1 They will be unable to attend, as they will be taking their dog to the vet's as it's being ever so unreliable again.

by ShuBob 13.06.14 14:52

PeterMac wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?
No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally.
totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

Ah. Thanks a lot.

by plebgate 13.06.14 14:53

Angelina and William Hague have had to cancel so two seats have become available on wee Kelly's sofa. Much more comfy than two plane seats don't you think.

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 14:54

SchrodingersBody wrote:2-1 They will be unable to attend, as they will be taking their dog to the vet's as it's being ever so unreliable again.

Aw jeez. It's bad enough thinking of the twins' having been left in their care, but the thought of a poor dumb animal having the McCanns as its owner is too appalling to contemplate SB. I wouldn't trust them to care for a goldfish.

by lj 13.06.14 14:56

PeterMac wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?
No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally.
totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

So would Dr Amaral be given the same chance and have the opportunity to tell the court how much HIS life has been damage by the conning couple?

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am soooo much behind.

by Cristobell 13.06.14 14:56

DonNewbery wrote:Does anyone here think there's a possibility of the worst case scenario (I'm saying this because I am really fearful that things could go horribly wrong): that MI5 and the British govt have somehow managed to pressurize the judge in advance in coming out in favour of the McCann's i.e that it's already been 'stitched up', in effect, for all time. And the McCann's have already been told this, which is why they are going out to Lisbon with such apparent confidence. Is there any chance of this ghastly scenario taking place??

No in a word! Not possible DonNewbery. Judges are subject to political pressure and there is a lot of controversy surrounding this case and everything must be transparent. There have been several civil trials in this case, and ultimately the Portuguese Supreme Court ruled Goncalo's book not libellous and it went back on sale. The McCanns (via Isabel) were ordered to return all the seized books. That they still went ahead with their claim for damages, was madness.

The original Order banning the book was deemed to have been made by an inexperienced Judge when it was overturned by a higher court. Ergo they will not take any risks in this case. This Judge knows exactly what she is doing and so far does not look as though she has been swayed by the dodgy evidence of the claimant's witnesses.

Additionally, as a fairly new democracy I think the Portuguese justice system is far more transparent than our own. Who would known the PJ would release the files for public scrutiny? I have faith in them.

by Liz Eagles 13.06.14 14:57

ShuBob wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?
No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally.
totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

Ah. Thanks a lot.

Here's the bit I don't understand. If it is merely an address to the court to show how the book affected them emotionally (I'm not quite sure it is though) then what could they demonstrate without doctors/qualified psych reports and proof of any prescribed medication? As there have been no professionals presented (forget the Pike farce) does just standing in front of a judge saying 'I couldn't eat/sleep' etc carry any weight?

by ShuBob 13.06.14 15:13

aquila wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?
No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally.
totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

Ah. Thanks a lot.
Here's the bit I don't understand. If it is merely an address to the court to show how the book affected them emotionally (I'm not quite sure it is though) then what could they demonstrate without doctors/qualified psych reports and proof of any prescribed medication? As there have been no professionals presented (forget the Pike farce) does just standing in front of a judge saying 'I couldn't eat/sleep' etc carry any weight?

It makes no sense to me either but I guess for genuine claimants, it has it's advantages.

by fossey 13.06.14 15:14

I think it's fair to say that IF by a miracle, the judge decides to side with the Mccanns version of dog turd lies and rules in favour of them, then this whole saga has been 'politically interfered' with again.

by missmar1 13.06.14 15:18

Oh I believe the Mccann's will turn up with all the fanfare they usually have with them on their very public "outings" they have a lot at stake here - besides the large amount of MONEY they are seeking .....
I believe had the report contained any detrimental information that could have harmed the Mccann's libel case CM would have suddenly developed another " tummy bug" and the Mccann's would have found a good excuse not to go

It is my opinion ( Due to the SY report ) they now have the extra confidence to face the court and all the cameras they hope will be there to greet them on arrival.......just look how quickly CM rushed out of the shadows like a bat out of hell to confirm the Mccann's attendance at the libel trial.

I do so hope - regardless of that report, that justice will prevail at that libel trial - but in any event, if SY cannot solve this case, I am hoping that if and when the PJ shelve the case again - the newly released files may turn this case straight back into the spotlight with previously unknown information and it may not be to the Mccann's liking either ! All my opinion only.

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 15:19

fossey wrote:I think it's fair to say that IF by a miracle, the judge decides to side with the Mccanns version of dog turd lies and rules in favour of them, then this whole saga has been 'politically interfered' with again.

'Politically interfered with again', fossey? Are you saying the legal proceedings in Lisbon have been subject to political interference and do you have any information to support this claim?

by fossey 13.06.14 15:22

ultimaThule wrote:
fossey wrote:I think it's fair to say that IF by a miracle, the judge decides to side with the Mccanns version of dog turd lies and rules in favour of them, then this whole saga has been 'politically interfered' with again.

'Politically interfered with again', fossey? Are you saying the legal proceedings in Lisbon have been subject to political interference and do you have any information to support this claim?

I have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support this claim your honour.

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 15:30

aquila wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Do they forfeit the case if they fail to turn up?
No. They have merely been given the opportunity to address the court to show how the book affected them emotionally totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is, or is not libellous, of course
Apart from that it is lawyers speaking, and then an adjournment

Ah. Thanks a lot.
Here's the bit I don't understand. If it is merely an address to the court to show how the book affected them emotionally (I'm not quite sure it is though) then what could they demonstrate without doctors/qualified psych reports and proof of any prescribed medication? As there have been no professionals presented (forget the Pike farce) does just standing in front of a judge saying 'I couldn't eat/sleep' etc carry any weight?

The Judge rejects the application to speak for a very good reason.
I suspect she knows they won't bring anything new to the table that isn't already said by their expert and non-expert witnesses hence her decision.

Unless Gerry and Kate bring along medical certificate, which if they were in possession of you'd think it would have been submitted long ago via their lawyer. Therefore we know they must have not have got that.

Gerry just want to go and give one of his "brilliant performances"ie bs tag-at-the-heartstrings speech (as another landmark speech to go into the records and history) hoping to turn their zero chance around. Else why would he resort to the drastic moving mountain measure to get a chance to speak.

by Guest 13.06.14 15:31

It says in the PJ files that they think the child died and an abduction was faked.

Black and white.

Before Amaral wrote his book.

Why are the McCanns not suing the PJ?

Amaral has only repeated what is in the files.

Log in for more topics