http://www.on-pt.com/?id=57632&feedcat=11&feedsubcat=26
(http://i73.servimg.com/u/f73/14/67/69/80/goncsc10.jpg)
You would have thought, he would at least wear a suit and tie, for court.
No to frighten everybody 8()-000(
Sky News just showed K McCann's short statement outside the court. She's determined.
Does it matter? LOL, shes not the judge
@)(++(*
Brunty now says if the Met investigation "comes to nothing", McCanns will hire more PIs.
He's a cheeky chap isn't he.
She won't let it lie Red. Until we're all wiped off the planet 8(0(*
Its not about the money apparently? ...but every little helps! 8(0(*
Oh its never been about money...*chortle* if it had been they would be asking for 10 million not just one in compensation, duh!!..according to clarence mitchell their spokesman they only take on legal proceedings with heavy hearts....i bet they are really crying tryng to fleece Amaral and destroy him, I mean I bet they were also crying when they paid metodo 3 to discredit him.....sob sob catholic compassionate sob....kate mccanns forgiven the abductor though how kind
Remember that the lawyers have to be paid. Carter-Ruck are representing them on a contingency basis so they have to win costs to get paid. I have a feeling this might be the real reason why £1m is being asked for.
Hopefully more clangers to come!The feared media circus was unfounded, but I wonder how the twins will, this time, escape the echos of the UK media about the alleged death of their sister.
OK, here we have a short report from Aussie land on the trial.....ooops, Martin Frizell is not on message....he says the taxi driver who picked up Madeleine and others, did so on THE NIGHT, which was the original account, not the next night as the story was refabricated to say in the press a few years later, thanks Martin!
Thanks again to Anne for her updates
We are lucky to have our own reporter on the ground ... this must be 'the' forum for breaking news
Well done Justice folk
Problem is that there is nothing to report.Two days and very little has happened. How long has this case dragged on for and when will a decision be reached.
Well I'm just grateful that we have someone on the spot who can accurately tell us what is ( or isn't ) happeningThank you, Icabodcrane. Actually I have many things to report, but I need time to "clean" my notes that now are in a mixture of French, English and Portuguese, as I tend to choose the shortest word ! And to-night I'm going to the movie ! The last Woody Allen.
I do hope Anne can be at the court again next week, when, I presume, Amaral's witnesses will appear
Thank you, Icabodcrane. Actually I have many things to report, but I need time to "clean" my notes that now are in a mixture of French, English and Portuguese, as I tend to choose the shortest word ! And to-night I'm going to the movie ! The last Woody Allen.
With all these breaks in the schedule (I believe the hearing won't resume until Thur/Fri again next week) I cannot see how the tribunal can remain focussed and especially if the judge pisses off on a half day on a Friday. It is beginning to resemble one almighty farce.The judge wanted to start again at 2pm, the lawyers asked for more time to have lunch. She said 2:15 would be her last word.
Oh my, Is Anne telling porkies again?
The judge wanted to start again at 2pm, the lawyers asked for more time to have lunch. She said 2:15 would be her last word.
What happened ? Everybody was in the court room, lawyers included, waiting for the judge, then a lady appeared and made this announcement.
Anyhow the sessions are taped and the clerk might do more or less what I did.
Implicit in the act of taking Amaral, given his high position in the PJ, to court, lies the suggestion that the PJ as a whole is corrupt. This is on top of the more explicit statements and suggestions made by the McCanns over the years to the fact that they regard not only the PJ but the Portuguese authorities as a whole as being below par.
There is a problem here, because one cannot on the one hand make claims against the integrity of a system, and at the same time, appeal to a court that is an embodiment of that system that it should somehow be the one to iron things out. Firstly, it is an affront to the court. Secondly, if the court and related institutions were below par as claimed, the court would not be capable of offering justice, and would continue to serve to protect only itself. There would be no practical gain in appealing to it.
The inherent contradiction in what the McCanns are attempting to do is an insult to the intelligence of the Portuguese in general, but apparently the McCanns believe that such ironies go unnoticed, because at the same time, the Portuguese authorities are being expected to co-operate with SY and restart the search for Madeleine in Portugal - which in order to be effective, would involve certain amount of co-operation from the Portuguese media as well.
It is hard to fathom where such bad advice comes from or what kind of 'logic' precedes it.
The object of the investigation is to find justice for Maddie and the fact that the Portuguese are hostile towards her parents should not come into it.
The judge wanted to start again at 2pm, the lawyers asked for more time to have lunch. She said 2:15 would be her last word.
What happened ? Everybody was in the court room, lawyers included, waiting for the judge, then a lady appeared and made this announcement.
Anyhow the sessions are taped and the clerk might do more or less what I did.
What an absolute disgrace...it seems an argument over the length of the lunchbreak has caused the loss of half a day.......no wonder they are derided and referred to as sardine munchers
Implicit in the act of taking Amaral, given his high position in the PJ, to court, lies the suggestion that the PJ as a whole is corrupt. This is on top of the more explicit statements and suggestions made by the McCanns over the years to the fact that they regard not only the PJ but the Portuguese authorities as a whole as being below par.
There is a problem here, because one cannot on the one hand make claims against the integrity of a system, and at the same time, appeal to a court that is an embodiment of that system that it should somehow be the one to iron things out. Firstly, it is an affront to the court. Secondly, if the court and related institutions were below par as claimed, the court would not be capable of offering justice, and would continue to serve to protect only itself. There would be no practical gain in appealing to it.
The inherent contradiction in what the McCanns are attempting to do is an insult to the intelligence of the Portuguese in general, but apparently the McCanns believe that such ironies go unnoticed, because at the same time, the Portuguese authorities are being expected to co-operate with SY and restart the search for Madeleine in Portugal - which in order to be effective, would involve certain amount of co-operation from the Portuguese media as well.
It is hard to fathom where such bad advice comes from or what kind of 'logic' precedes it.
This trial is not about justice for Madeleine.
It's all about the greed of the mccanns.
They were never victims.
Madeleine was, because of their arrogant stupidity.
You have observed both sessions now Anne and we are all very grateful for your reports. In all honesty can you see this going anywhere?
In a libel case the injured party has to establish personal loss of one sort or another so what are the McCanns claiming to have lost due to the actions of the defender Gonçalo Amaral?
I'm not following you on that, I'm afraid.
Who had a "high position in the PJ"? Amaral? He was the coordinator of a local police force prior to leaving it.
What are you saying? That individuals within a country's law enforcement should not be held to account?
The object of the investigation is to find justice for Maddie and the fact that the Portuguese are hostile towards her parents should not come into it.
What I am saying is, Davel, is that this taking people to court is not the most diplomatic way of getting the Portuguese, or anyone, on one's side.
It is not only that the Portuguese are hostile to the McCanns, but that the McCanns are showing their hostility to the Portuguese. Is this the wisest thing to do at the same time they are asking for co-operation?
in the early days the McCanns were supportive of the PJ even though they had reservations early on that they were incompetent. How can you be supportive of a police force that wrongly accuses you of a crime. if you support them you are endorsing their actions. the McCanns are not asking for Portuguese cooperation. SY are. it should have nothing to do with the McCanns
8@??)( @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
What I am saying is, Davel, is that this taking people to court is not the most diplomatic way of getting the Portuguese, or anyone, on one's side.
It is not only that the Portuguese are hostile to the McCanns, but that the McCanns are showing their hostility to the Portuguese. Is this the wisest thing to do at the same time they are asking for co-operation?
I understand what you are saying but the MCanns started this action long before the new SY investigation was started. Perhaps this answers then question of why they may have tried to settle this out of court. The whole thing is a mess.
What I am saying is, Davel, is that this taking people to court is not the most diplomatic way of getting the Portuguese, or anyone, on one's side.The Portuguese aren't hostile and they don't mind the McCanns suing Mr Amaral, may be because here like elsewhere everybody knows that suing is rarely a good idea though sometimes it can't be avoided.
It is not only that the Portuguese are hostile to the McCanns, but that the McCanns are showing their hostility to the Portuguese. Is this the wisest thing to do at the same time they are asking for co-operation?
What an absolute disgrace...it seems an argument over the length of the lunchbreak has caused the loss of half a day.......no wonder they are derided and referred to as sardine munchersImagine the judge had an heart attack. This is possible, I don't know what happened. How do you dare ?
You have observed both sessions now Anne and we are all very grateful for your reports. In all honesty can you see this going anywhere?I prefer posting my notes. Then we can talk about it.
In a libel case the injured party has to establish personal loss of one sort or another so what are the McCanns claiming to have lost due to the actions of the defender Gonçalo Amaral?
The Portuguese aren't hostile and they don't mind the McCanns suing Mr Amaral, may be because here like elsewhere everybody knows that suing is rarely a good idea though sometimes it can't be avoided.
Chinagirl --
Apparently, at the beginning of proceedings Amaral requested that the hearing be conducted in camera. What were his reasons for this request, and what were the grounds for its rejection?
Repeating this question from yesterday. An answer would be very much appreciated, Anne, particularly the last part underlined here.
I don't now, Chinagirl, apparently it's not rare in that sort of trial but it has to be justified. It seems Mr Amaral's request was to restrain the audience to the public, excluding the media. Martin Brunt even asked me if, in this case, I would report for him (I was the only member of the public).
Thank you for your reply, Anne. So it seems the reason for Amaral's request was to exclude the media from reporting on it, presumably both Portuguese as well as UK (and other) media. One has to wonder why, given his former eagerness to encourage dissemination of his views about this matter.
And it would be interesting to know the grounds on which his request was refused.
I don't mean that the Portuguese as a whole are hostile, only that, generally speaking, they have taken a dim view of the McCanns.It seems Mrs Duarte said (I didn't hear it) that they had offered a deal to Mr Amaral, in vain.
I hardly think this is a court case that couldn't have been avoided...
Is it true Amaral is an arguido again, Anne?No, DCI, as I said before, Mr Amaral is the "réu" and the five McCanns are the "autores".
It seems Mrs Duarte said (I didn't hear it) that they had offered a deal to Mr Amaral, in vain.
What an absolute disgrace...it seems an argument over the length of the lunchbreak has caused the loss of half a day.......no wonder they are derided and referred to as sardine munchers
That's interesting AnneI don't know whether he was expecting some stats, but the "no ideia" answer allowed him to deduce that AMB was just giving his opinion, which AMB confirmed after some silence and hesitation.
Was Amaral's lawyer pointing out that it was the McCanns becoming arguido that lead to the change in public opinion, rather than Amaral's book, do you think ?
The reason they wanted the court case to be private is because they don't know if Madeleine is dead or alive?I vaguely heard that the issue was to respect Madeleine's name, but I don't know from where that came. Now I know, thanks to Redblossom.
So Amaral thinks she could be alive?
from 1.29The blond lady is GA's lawyer's assistant and the lady who passes in front of her is Guerra & Paz's lawyer.
Imagine the judge had an heart attack. This is possible, I don't know what happened. How do you dare ?
The reason they wanted the court case to be private is because they don't know if Madeleine is dead or alive?
So Amaral thinks she could be alive?
Things not going the Mccanns way then ?
So the insults start flying ?
Xenophobia starts again ?
So let's consider the continental view of the British abroad........
For the average male--------- 'A shaven headed beer swilling drunk, who urinates in the street'
Do you like that davel ?
its pretty obvious what happened...the judge threw her dummy out of the pram
Imagine the judge had an heart attack. This is possible, I don't know what happened. How do you dare ?
I don't see this from brits when I go abroad...perhaps you go to lower class resorts...you sound very xenophobic
No, DCI, as I said before, Mr Amaral is the "réu" and the five McCanns are the "autores".
The accused and the accusers.
It is quoted he is an arguido in this TVI24 article. It is also said the McCann's were open to reach an extrajudicial agreement with Gonçalo Amaral.
Maddie Case: Psychologist and criminal lawyer testify in favour of the McCann couple
13 SEPTEMBER 2013 | POSTED BY ASTRO
Afternoon session was canceled
Only two witnesses, a psycholigist and a criminal lawyer, were heard today on the second day of the trial of the civil lawsuit that was filed by the McCann couple against former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, as the afternoon session was canceled.
According to Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, the cancellation of the audience that had been scheduled for the afternoon was due to a "personal problem" of judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro. Nevertheless, the impediment is of temporary character and does not compromise the course of the trail.
Isabel Duarte, the McCann couple's lawyer in the civil suit, over defamation, against the former PJ inspector who investigated the disappearance of the English child in the Algarve (2007), told Lusa agency that due to this unforeseen problem with the judge, the court was not able to hear the other three witnesses, all of them relatives of the British couple.
With Kate McCann and the grandmother of the missing little girl seated in the area that is destined for the public, the morning session was used to hear an English psychologist who accompanied Madeleine McCann's twin siblings after the tragic disappearance of the child from a hotel apartment in Lagos, in the Algarve.
The other witness that was heard was a criminal lawyer who helped the McCann couple in an attempt to decipher the mystery that surrounds the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, who spoke about the media impact that the public statements of Gonçalo Amaral, involving the child's parents in the disappearance, had in England.
Isabel Duarte mentioned that the following sessions are scheduled for September 19, 20 and 27, then continuing on October 2 and 8, and concluding on the 5th of November.
According to the lawyer, Kate McCann will not testify during the trial, despite the fact that the new Civil Process Code already foresees that possibility, given that the process was worked upon and elaborated under another presupposition.
The same happens with Gonçalo Amaral, who will not make a statement during the trial.
Earlier, the parties failed to reach an extrajudicial agreement within the civil case, in which Madeleine McCann's parents requested compensation in the amount of 1.2 million euro over the alleged defamation by the former PJ inspector (who investigated the child's disappearance). The trial started with the questioning of three witnesses - a Canadian and two Englishmen - who are "friends" of the McCann couple.
In statements to Lusa on Thursday, Isabel Duarte said that since the beginning, the McCann couple was open to reach an extrajudicial agreement with Gonçalo Amaral, but it was not possible to reach an agreement with the arguido.
Nonetheless, she stressed that the McCann couple's main goal was that the investigation into the child's disappearance was restarted, which, according to her, has already happened, without adding any further details or leads.
In a related process, the Civil Court of Lisbon decided, in January of 2010, to keep the prohibition of the sale of the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", authored by Gonçalo Amaral, and of the video with the same title, based on a documentary that was broadcast by TVI.
The ban of the book and the video, which presents Gonçalo Amaral's thesis on the involvement of Kate and Gerry McCann in the disappearance of their daughter by concealing the cadaver, had been provisionally ordered on the 9th of September of 2009.
On the 19th of October of 2010, the Appellate Court of Lisbon annulled the decision of the Civil Court, after which the McCann couple appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice. In a ruling dated March 18, 2011, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appellate Court's decision.
Madeleine McCann disappeared on the 3rd of May of 2007, in an apartment in a holiday resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was spending a vacation with her parents and her twin siblings.
At that time, Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Judiciary Police in Portimão.
Kate and Gerry McCann, who have always stated that the child was abducted, were made arguidos in September, 2007.
The investigation was archived due to a lack of evidence in July of 2008, although the Public Ministry admits reopening it if new data concerning the child's disappearance surfaces.
in: TVI24, 13.09.2013
Probably. Looks like his lawyer does. The book was never intended to 'prove' she died - the documentary may be more provocative, but that's TV: it's on the same kind of level as Nancy Grace's shows.
What is your point DCI ? I take it you do have one ?
Your opinion of Nancy Grace shows being?
its pretty obvious what happened...the judge threw her dummy out of the pram
Ask Astro, what her point was in posting it 8((()*/
Go play with someone else. Instead of attacking posters.
Was that directed at me ?
It was you who posted the article. If you don't want questioned about it, don't post it.
Simple really 8(0(*
Yes posted the article in a reply to Anne's post, about Amaral being an arguido. >@@(*&)
Goncalo Amaral is still an Arguido in The Leandro Silva Affair. God alone knows how long that one will take to get to Court. They have tried very hard to bury that one.
Cheers, Eleanor, I had forgotten about him 8((()*/
Goncalo Amaral is still an Arguido in The Leandro Silva Affair. God alone knows how long that one will take to get to Court. They have tried very hard to bury that one.
in the early days the McCanns were supportive of the PJ even though they had reservations early on that they were incompetent. How can you be supportive of a police force that wrongly accuses you of a crime. if you support them you are endorsing their actions. the McCanns are not asking for Portuguese cooperation. SY are. it should have nothing to do with the McCanns
For God sake. Hostile to them?!!!! If they were portuguese they would have been put in jail immediately, if for nothing else for the crime of coarse negligence. Instead, with the help of UK Ambassador and Council they were not disturbed with searches or hash interrogations...there is where the PJ was really incompetent, by following orders from the Ministry of Justice and the General Attorney.
Dear God, do help me. Are you saying that The Mcanns neglected their children, thereby allowing Madeleine to be abducted? Or are you saying that The McCanns were instrumental in the death of their daughter? It has to be one or the other. Which is it?
However, Britain had long been aware of what might happen in such a case in Portugal, and so they sent The British Ambassador tout de bloody suite to make sure that it wouldn't happen again.
I would have expected nothing less.
...moderated ...
If they were portuguese they would have been put in jail immediately,
Same as Leonor Cipriano was, you mean?
Because she could no longer tolerate the pain of being beaten with a bag over her head (to prevent her from identifying her torturers) and being forced to stand on broken glass (there certainly seems to be an understanding among certain elements within the PJ of the potential of the feet for inflicting pain) ...
Ah yes,
ferryman supporting the murderer again.
Sadly, you are entitled to say that, because the Portuguese courts (in collective unwisdom) declined to see anything wrong with a 'confession' extorted out of a witness in police custody.
Shame on the Portuguese judiciary (which doesn't get everything wrong) ...
Sadly, you are entitled to say that, because the Portuguese courts (in collective unwisdom) declined to see anything wrong with a 'confession' extorted out of a witness in police custody.
Shame on the Portuguese judiciary (which doesn't get everything wrong) ...
Do b....r off. So perfect as you might be. You are fit only to bore the arse off a donkey. God preserve me and my children from the likes of you.
Isabel Duarte speaking outside the court today admitted that she had been unable to locate the funds which Mr Amaral has accrued following the release of his book and DVD etc.
He has effectively hidden them.
I've stated earlier that Amaral had given most of the money by the book to charity,
You may have stated that, but you've not provided the evidence to support your statement ...
Thanks for the previous and thanks for this one. ?{)(**
That's a bit like a pauper telling a millionaire to apply for a loan.
Get your own problems sorted first before even dreaming about "diagnosing" those of others ...
I don't have any.
Nil points on that one.
you are totally wrong
I'm want to know what happened to Maddie and see whoever is responsible brought to justice. I just think that the Portuguese did a very poor job and I hope that SY do abetter one
Did that happen? I'm not truly impartial, I don't care for Gerry and Kate, but there can be no excuse for defacing a poster of Madeleine. None at all.
Well, it does, really. It is incredibly important to discover what happened to Madeleine.How do you know they were "robbed of their daughter" ?
Trite as it sounds, there are at least 2 people out there who know for certain what happened to that little girl. And however selfish and stupid her parents were, and they surely were, they didn't deserve to be robbed of their daughter.
Well, it does, really. It is incredibly important to discover what happened to Madeleine.
Trite as it sounds, there are at least 2 people out there who know for certain what happened to that little girl. And however selfish and stupid her parents were, and they surely were, they didn't deserve to be robbed of their daughter.
And why does Kerry Needham stage raffles, and sad table-top stuff, to finance her trips, and no one looks for Keith Bennet anymore, but Maddie's case is so high-profile?Ask the dogs, Shona, they made Madeleine's case a high profile one.
How do you know they were "robbed of their daughter" ?
Because they are. They thought they could get away with bigging it up, chatting their usual crap, showing off, and all the time....they're child was taken. They didn't look, they didn't care, they chose to gossip and flirt.There's no evidence of this, Shona.
It'
Because they are. They thought they could get away with bigging it up, chatting their usual crap, showing off, and all the time....they're child was taken. They didn't look, they didn't care, they chose to gossip and flirt.
It'
you won't find Maddie now.Nobody probably will. That's why it would be more fruitful to go back to the bed from which she allegedly was stolen.
Eleanor, I don't see anyone here trying to prove an abduction could not have happened. >@@(*&)
Or saying the McCanns killed their daughter.
Indeed and there won't be. Lets be sensible Eleanor.
Oh, do let's be sensible. If only. Either Madeleine was abducted, or her parents were directly responsible for her disappearance.
Is there some other scenario that I have missed?
Oh, do let's be sensible. If only. Either Madeleine was abducted, or her parents were directly responsible for her disappearance.
Is there some other scenario that I have missed?
Anne, where are you?I'm about to finish Emma Loach's statement.
Please tell us more about the trial - I couldn't go to Lisbon, too much work.
I'm about to finish Emma Loach's statement.
YesI don't agree with that, Icabodcrane. The parents had no reason at all to fear an abduction from bed. But... they had all reasons to fear their adored Madeleine wouldn't get asleep because she knew her parents were going out at night. And, if Madeleine couldn't sleep because she was scared to be alone, what would this "adventurous" girl, as depicted by father Seddon, do ? This is the crucial matter for the McCanns.
The one where, even IF Madeleine was abducted, her parents are still directly responsible ... because if they hadn't sashayed carefree down the road that night, leaving three infants under the age of four alone and defenceless in an unlocked apartment ....
The reason they wanted the court case to be private is because they don't know if Madeleine is dead or alive?
So Amaral thinks she could be alive?
I notice that Gonçalo Amaral didn't speak to the Press outside the court but Kate McCann did briefly. This is something which wouldn't happen in the UK during a live court case so I assume Portugal has different rules? Surely this is frowned upon?During a live court the plaintiff and the defendant aren't supposed to speak to the press, even if, like Mrs McCann, they don't answer to questions. The lawyers themselves are limited by a reserve duty.
Maybe Anne can enlighten us? >@@(*&)
Just a short update. Anne advises that there were four witnesses heard today so will get a copy of the evidence up asap.
Alan Pyke, Melchior Gomes (who signed the AG report), Alipio Ribeiro (who kicked Amaral out) and Claudia Nogueira (from Lift Consulting, who spinned the McCann image for two years in Portugal), all witnesses for the prosecution.
Plaintiffs I think 8(>((
Do you know why, DCI ?
Alipio Ribeiro was dismissed after 10 minutes in court!
Do you know why, DCI ?
all witnesses for the prosecution, John says!A witness for the prosecution ("témoin à charge" in French) is a witness whose testimony supports the accusation.
Alipio Ribeiro, ex-director of Portuguese police, dismissed as witness after 10 minutes after admitting not read book or seen doc.Yes, likely everything the accusation wanted to demonstrate was said, he didn't need to stay longer.
Yes, likely everything the accusation wanted to demonstrate was said, he didn't need to stay longer.
He wasn't there, but through video-conference. As Melchior Gomes.
A witness for the prosecution ("témoin à charge" in French) is a witness whose testimony supports the accusation.
Alipio Ribeiro, ex-director of Portuguese police, dismissed as witness after 10 minutes after admitting not read book or seen doc.
Yes, likely everything the accusation wanted to demonstrate was said, he didn't need to stay longer.
He wasn't there, but through video-conference. As Melchior Gomes.
all witnesses for the prosecution, John says!
Prosecution? It's not the Inquisition 8)-))) Plantiffs v Defendants isn't it?I like the word "prosecution", "accusation" is ugly and "plaintiff" has no connotation (whereas "prosecution" sounds Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich), do you use it only in criminal courts ?
I like the word "prosecution", "accusation" is ugly and "plaintiff" has no connotation (whereas "prosecution" sounds Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich), do you use it only in criminal courts ?
A witness for the prosecution ("témoin à charge" in French) is a witness whose testimony supports the accusation.
160 'guests' on the board at this time of night !
Anne's reports are clearly much anticipated
Well done Justice Forum for being the main source of Libel trial news that other forums rely on for first-hand updates
And well done Anne, of course, for adding such kudos to the board 8@??)(
160 'guests' on the board at this time of night !
Anne's reports are clearly much anticipated
Well done Justice Forum for being the main source of Libel trial news that other forums rely on for first-hand updates
And well done Anne, of course, for adding such kudos to the board 8@??)(
Did you miss DCI's contributions of Jerry Lawtons tweets?
No, I read them, and appreciate DCI's efforts
That's not why 160 guests are viewing this board at this time of night though is it ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see any other updates on here today.
No, I read them, and appreciating DCI's efforts
That's not why 160 guests are viewing this board at this time of night though is it ?
That's why I pointed out that Anne's reports are 'much anticipated' ... 160 guests at this time of night is pretty remarkable, and the only explanation for it is that our 'reporter on the ground' has people hooked, and waiting ...
Did you miss DCI's contributions of Jerry Lawtons tweets?
That's why I pointed out that Anne's reports are 'much anticipated' ... 160 guests at this time of night is pretty remarkable, and the only explanation for it is that our 'reporter on the ground' has people hooked, and waiting ...
Prosecution? It's not the Inquisition 8)-))) Plantiffs v Defendants isn't it?
Its only Kevin again, risen from the dead and reincarnated as Elizabeth. Account expunged!
You think Anne's reports are impartial?
Really?
You know this ?
How?
We are lucky to have members who go out and bring back the information so that the rest of us can share it. Anne is covering the libel trial while Joanne graciously attended a justice workshop in Sheffield for us not so long ago. All greatly appreciated ladies!
As far as today's Reports are concerned the first of them should be available in the morning. Anne has to write them up from her notes using both Portuguese and English and then I have to edit them...all takes time.
And yes Neeley, the Reports are matter of fact.
You know this ?
How?
Yes. We should be grateful that there are people willing to give their time to inform us.
Thanks to Anne and to you John for the editing.
Kiss
And you know it's not how ?8((()*/
I'll tell you what Neeley, the moment you or any of your ilk expend a fraction of the energy Anne has last week and this to bring us the information she has, then, and only then you will have earned the right to criticise her work.
Why would I beleive a McCann sceptic?
You editing Anne's version of events in court doesn't make them true.
Then why the F do you care to read them? Just go somewhere else. Read the tomorrow Mirror or Express instead: "poor Kate almost killed herself )but she didn't, on the contrary) or Poor Kate contemplated suicide, poor woman! So suicidal that she kept always improving her image and giving interviews and going all around the world as if she was a cinema star. Marilyn Monroe contemplated suicide, but she didn't announce it...
I'm sorry but you make me loose my temper when you are so "poor and ungrateful". Nobody is reporting from inside the Court but Anne, and you come here questioning the neutrality of her work?!
seconded
... even those who are churlish and bitter are hanging on Anne and John's every word 8(0(*
Tell you what Faithliily, don't tell me what to think and what to post.
A sceptic posting from the court will always cause me to question what they post.
I am indeed questioning the neutrality of her work.
The newspapers are reporting on the trial so I don't need Anne's version of events.
Sorry if this upsets you.
You might question it, but you can't wait to read it can you 8)-)))@)(++(*
Oh, ffs. The whole world knows why Maddie was taken. Because her stupid, selfish parents took their eye off the ball.
You editing Anne's version of events in court doesn't make them true.
I am indeed questioning the neutrality of her work.
The newspapers are reporting on the trial so I don't need Anne's version of events.
Sorry if this upsets you.
Anne you said Ribeiro was a witness for the prosecution, but last week you heard he was witness for the defence.I heard his name only, I thought he was a defence's witness because he was named on a list with Moita Flores and MF couldn't possibly be a plaintiffs' witness.
I am indeed questioning the neutrality of her work.
The newspapers are reporting on the trial so I don't need Anne's version of events.
Sorry if this upsets you.
Actually the newspapers are for the most part using their own words to create sensationalism in order to sell their wares. Anne is reporting what the witnesses actually said, the vast majority of which never reaches the public.
And we have to listen to Gerry and Kate blaming everyone else, when it was their fault.
Who, in their right minds, would leave 3 small children in an unlocked apartment with road frontage, while they chatted crap?
Russian roulette.
According to one of the docs, russell obrien, they checked every 15 minutes so take five minutes to get there check and get back at least it must have been like musical chairs all night, yeah right
Well, that's a load of old bolloxs.
There was a 15 minute gap when Maddie was taken.
Anne is a sceptic.
Her reporting is from her point of view. IMO.
However this being a sceptics forum I don't expect you to agree.
Anne is a sceptic.
Her reporting is from her point of view. IMO.
However this being a sceptics forum I don't expect you to agree.
Anne is a sceptic.
Her reporting is from her point of view. IMO.
However this being a sceptics forum I don't expect you to agree.
Obviously
Are you saying that if someone who believed the McCann's version of events took the trouble to attend court and report back to us you would accept every word as gospel ... merely because that person shared your own opinions about the case ?
That's just silly
If any of her reports are twisted against the Mccanns, then of course it is damaging for the Mccanns.
Common sense Icabod
If any of her reports are twisted against the Mccanns, then of course it is damaging for the Mccanns.
Common sense Icabod
No she hasn't. But as this is an open Forum others took the reports filed here and divulged them, acknowledging its source.
Sense at last, all this nonsensical carpet chewing by some is hilarious even if very sad indeed
@)(++(*
It appears a lot of media outlets have taken copy and posted it on their own sites while many newsletter and blogs are linking to the forum instead.
I see that the entire Reports are now viewable directly without having to open a pdf file. I assume that is to make copying and quoting much easier ??
It appears a lot of media outlets have taken copy and posted it on their own sites while many newsletter and blogs are linking to the forum instead.
I see that the entire Reports are now viewable directly without having to open a pdf file. I assume that is to make copying and quoting much easier ??
The internet to MSM is as the caxton press was to the bible
@)(++(*
catastrophic power shift from the few controllers and slave drivers to the many freed
Beautiful, Red!
How is it that the McCanns are apparently able to wheel anyone into court they like to spout hearsay (basically all of them so far have been opinion-based witnesses) and their testimony has not been backed with any evidence but yet still appears to be being taken seriously?
Surely it would therefore be just as valid for Amaral to wheel in any one of dozens of cops to purely say, "absolutely, we think the McCanns were involved in what happened to Madeleine" and it would have to be treated as just as valid by the court?
I truly don't understand how Portuguese courts work based on what Anna is reporting is happening.
How is it that the McCanns are apparently able to wheel anyone into court they like to spout hearsay (basically all of them so far have been opinion-based witnesses) and their testimony has not been backed with any evidence but yet still appears to be being taken seriously?
Surely it would therefore be just as valid for Amaral to wheel in any one of dozens of cops to purely say, "absolutely, we think the McCanns were involved in what happened to Madeleine" and it would have to be treated as just as valid by the court?
I truly don't understand how Portuguese courts work based on what Anna is reporting is happening.
No, this is an impartial forum which prides itself on sticking to the facts. Your criticism of Anne's reporting says more about you Neeley than it will ever say about Anne. Maybe you would like to volunteer to sit in court for up to 8 hours each day and write the reports for free?
Always remembering too that it is an offence to misrepresent a witness and can leave one open to a libel suit.
If this is an impartial forum we shouldn't be seeing things like the below from a Senior Mod, John:
Who, in their right minds, would leave 3 small children in an unlocked apartment with road frontage, while they chatted crap?
If this is an impartial forum we shouldn't be seeing things like the below from a Senior Mod, John:
Who, in their right minds, would leave 3 small children in an unlocked apartment with road frontage, while they chatted crap?
Why? I happen to agree but I won't say it on here...oops. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/ssshh-ssshh-animated-animation-smiley-emoticon-000358-medium.gif)
I have asked that same question to many parents recently and the vast majority say the same.
Just out of curiosity, do you agree with what they did?
IMO. mods should not be showing a bias which may affect their modding - just my take on it John, that's all.
Personally I would not have done what the McCanns did, but it is not my place to judge them and to be fair it is no different to baby listening services - and indeed the old Pontins method of a nanny cycling up and down.
I think to be fair to baby listening services the apartment is usually locked securely and especially so if it is on the ground floor with an unsecured access. All said and done I think they were extremely silly!Maybe, maybe not. We dont know, do we? In my youth doors used to be left unlocked regularly. In fact only about 15 years ago I know a family who never locked their door.
Maybe, maybe not. We dont know, do we? In my youth doors used to be left unlocked regularly. In fact only about 15 years ago I know a family who never locked their door.
Dont forget, John, this unlocked door was well within sight of the group at only 50 metres away. And Amaral said no-body would go in that way when being so close to the family.
Not quite like going somewhere where you cannot keep an eye on things, is it?
Why do keep insisting that it was OK for the McCanns to leave those patio doors unlocked because they could 'see' them ?@)(++(*
You must know that they would not have been staring intently at the patio doors the whole evening ?
But let's suppose they were ... let's suppose there was never a second when they didn't take their eyes of those patio doors
And let's suppose further, that whilst they were watching the patio doors so intently they saw a man enter them ...
What then ?
You yourself have said that the actual abduction would have taken less than a minute
So Kate and Gerry 'see' someone going in through the patio doors ( illuminated by the 'rectangle of light ) .... They jump up from the table and dash to the apartment ... by which time their child has been snatched from her bed and already carried of into the darkness by a beast
Now ... tell me again how leaving the patio doors unlocked was OK because they could 'see' them
Why do keep insisting that it was OK for the McCanns to leave those patio doors unlocked because they could 'see' them ?
You must know that they would not have been staring intently at the patio doors the whole evening ?
But let's suppose they were ... let's suppose there was never a second when they didn't take their eyes of those patio doors
And let's suppose further, that whilst they were watching the patio doors so intently they saw a man enter them ...
What then ?
You yourself have said that the actual abduction would have taken less than a minute
So Kate and Gerry 'see' someone going in through the patio doors ( illuminated by the 'rectangle of light ) .... They jump up from the table and dash to the apartment ... by which time their child has been snatched from her bed and already carried of into the darkness by a beast
Now ... tell me again how leaving the patio doors unlocked was OK because they could 'see' them
If anyone wanted to sneak in the patio doors he could have done so very easily. All he had to do was to slip up the steps hunkered down and crawl along the patio floor on his hands and knees to the unlocked patio door and hey presto...in without anyone ever seeing even a shadow.
Maybe, maybe not. We dont know, do we? In my youth doors used to be left unlocked regularly. In fact only about 15 years ago I know a family who never locked their door.,f
Dont forget, John, this unlocked door was well within sight of the group at only 50 metres away. And Amaral said no-body would go in that way when being so close to the family.
Not quite like going somewhere where you cannot keep an eye on things, is it?
,f
The patio doors were not in sight of the Tapas bar. The McCanns also had their backs to the apartment according to the seating arrangements and there was also a plastic curtain which you could not see through. The hedge also prevented them from having a clear view of the doors. I don't know if you are aware that there was a swimming pool between the Tapas bar and the apartment. I can't imagine Gerry McCann leaving the doors unlocked if he left his wallet and mobile in the apartment.
,f
The patio doors were not in sight of the Tapas bar. The McCanns also had their backs to the apartment according to the seating arrangements and there was also a plastic curtain which you could not see through. The hedge also prevented them from having a clear view of the doors. I don't know if you are aware that there was a swimming pool between the Tapas bar and the apartment. I can't imagine Gerry McCann leaving the doors unlocked if he left his wallet and mobile in the apartment.
What do you think happened to Madeleine, Montclair?
I don't believe that she was abducted.8@??)(
Regarding the sliding patio doors, if they are anything like the ones I have and most other people I know here, when you close them all the way they lock automatically. I read somewhere Rachel Mamphilly's rogatory interview where she stated that the McCanns opened and closed the roll shutters of the patio doors everytime they went to check on the children!! This is physically impossible, the shutters can only be opened from the inside by pulling on the strap which enables the slats to roll around the mechanism on the top.
I don't believe that she was abducted.
So how did the McCanns "do it" then, Montclair?
Does it matter? No
If you want to know what I believe what happened I suggest that you read the report of Tavares de Almeida from 10 September 2007.
Why do keep insisting that it was OK for the McCanns to leave those patio doors unlocked because they could 'see' them ?Thanks so much, Icabodcrane, laughing is so good !
You must know that they would not have been staring intently at the patio doors the whole evening ?
But let's suppose they were ... let's suppose there was never a second when they didn't take their eyes of those patio doors
And let's suppose further, that whilst they were watching the patio doors so intently they saw a man enter them ...
What then ?
You yourself have said that the actual abduction would have taken less than a minute
So Kate and Gerry 'see' someone going in through the patio doors ( illuminated by the 'rectangle of light ) .... They jump up from the table and dash to the apartment ... by which time their child has been snatched from her bed and already carried of into the darkness by a beast
Now ... tell me again how leaving the patio doors unlocked was OK because they could 'see' them
Taking turns to stand outside with fixed eyes on the door window ?
Had their eyes fixed all night
@)(++(*
If you want to know what I believe that happened I suggest that you read the report of Tavares de Almeida from 10 September 2007.
Ah yes - the long-superseded interim report penned by a corrupt policeman. If his report was so good, I wonder why they weren't even arrested, never mind charged with anything.
I have my opinion based on logic and facts, ponto final. There is nothing, nothing which points to an abduction.
Does anyone know when the transcripts of the testimonies of Claudia Nogueira and Michael Wright will be ready?
No, perhaps John can enlighten us 8((()*/
Claudia's just been posted, Michael Wright's later tonight.
Thanks John, just read Claudia's, is there some missing at the end? Its ends without a proper reply, to a question asked!
Nope that's it. She didn't answer it all.
Maybe Anne will clarify?
Nope that's it. She didn't answer it all.This was her way to answer or not answer..
Maybe Anne will clarify?
Fair enough, Montclair. But come on, let's put our cards on the table - there was just no time for Kate and Gerry McCann to do anything sinister before the alarm was raised!Not before, but right after (imo).
Someone's Happy!
(http://i.imgur.com/FfLZNNb.jpg)
Photo: Anne Guedes
Dr Gonçalo Amaral and Dr Santos Oliveira exit smiling from the Palace of Justice in Lisbon
as they depart for lunch during a break in Fridays proceedings.
Claudia's just been posted, Michael Wright's later tonight.
Great photograph. What a pair of confident looking gentleman. ?{)(**
This was her way to answer or not answer..
Was she not pressed to give an answer to the question.
I applaud your efforts Anne. This is only going to get better as the action progresses. Do we know when the next setting is??
seconded
When the Amaral witnesses start appearing I dread to think how it will be spun in the British press
Anne's efforts will be invalualbe !
I'm certainly not surreptitious and it didn't pass my mind to record. See what the judge said about a journalist supposed to use her cell phone. And I don't take a few notes, I constantly write in order to be the most objective possible. Even so I have to count on my memory. After a few days my notes would be of no use.
Anne do you take down your notes in shorthand?
I'm certainly not surreptitious and it didn't pass my mind to record. See what the judge said about a journalist supposed to use her cell phone. And I don't take a few notes, I constantly write in order to be the most objective possible. Even so I have to count on my memory. After a few days my notes would be of no use.
Anne, you are doing a truly fantastic job. After 6 years following this case, for many of us you are the only reporter, giving as accurate account as possible about what is REALLY happening in that courtroom, rather than sitting back and regurgitating the bucketloads of PR spin, as all our so-called professional papers in the UK are doing.
I couldn't agree more@)(++(*
Now that we are getting detailed information directly from source it is so much more apparent how facts are spun almost out of recognition in our press
@)(++(*Journalists have to earn their living. I'm free, this is an enormous privilege, I wouldn't feel well if I didn't take advantage of this.
Known for a few years now.....sad inditement on some so called journalists...I would imagine the more serious ones are waiting it out, writing copy in the meantime, funny old business
in the meantime its most excellent to get reports from a forum member there at the scene despite some members complaining, wonder if they would be complaining if reports looked bad for the defence!
Journalists have to earn their living. I'm free, this is an enormous privilege, I wouldn't feel well if I didn't take advantage of this.
Astro said I'm your eyes and your ears, and this is exactly what I'm trying to achieve.
You don't imagine how grateful I'm.
Well its bloody priceless Anne
8((()*/
Absolutely Red. Thank you again Anne for all your effort.
I wonder would John and Anne agree to the following.
When I work collaboratively with colleagues on documents we always maintain a record of the original, and each stage of the changes that have been made because it allows a fuller understanding of the way the document developed.
In the spirit of openness and completeness would John and Anne agree to the posting of all three stages of these court reports? Notes, Anne's original report and the final edited version. That way we could all see the way in which the record was achieved.
oh for heaven's sake stop sniping !
Why is it that to you and some others un-spun facts and straightforward truth is anathema ?
Skys Martin Brunt has tweeted todays hearings cancelled due to Mr Amarals lawyer's son taken illOh dear 8(8-)) I hope the son of Mr Amaral's lawyer gets well soon.
Skys Martin Brunt has tweeted todays hearings cancelled due to Mr Amarals lawyer's son taken ill
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 10m
#madeleine Gerry McCann: "Damage has been caused to the search for Madeleine."
View details ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 12m
#madeleine Outside court Mr McCann said: "I want to give evidence. Kate and I know better than anyone what we've experienced."
View details ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 33m
#madeleine Today's hearing abandoned because Mr Amaral's lawyer's son is ill.
View details ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 54m
#madeleine Gerry McCann arrives for libel trial. He said: "I'm here for Madeleine and justice." pic.twitter.com/DmwBtlCJN6
View photo ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 59m
#madeleine Ex-cop Goncalo Amaral in good mood as he arrives at McCann libel trial in Lisbon pic.twitter.com/pSWBbeazOn
View photo ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt 4h
#madeleine Gerry McCann expected to ask judge to let him give evidence in libel trial against ex-cop Goncalo Amaral in Lisbon today.
View details ·
martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
Yet more manipulation with the court dates !!!
How many times now has this case been postponed because someone is " ill "?
Is something about to happen, Pat Brown like, that will alter the evidence?
I have every sympathy with anyone who has not been able to attend a court hearing, whether it be a judge, witness or a member of a lawyer's family due to unforeseen urgent matters. I do hope that whatever the circumstances were has not proved to be too serious.
What I find a bit odd, in this case, is just how many times this case seems to have been postponed due to such matters.
Who wouldn't have symathy for an ill child, or anyone else.
I just hope this wasn't planned to get it postponed 8(8-))
ETA
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 56s
#mccann libel trial will resume on Wednesday Oct 2 - Madeleine's parents seek £1m from Amaral over his book claims they covered up her death
Was Kate there today, John?
She's not with Gerry in the picture
Was Kate there today, John?No, but his sister is!
She's not with Gerry in the picture
I assume she is watching the twins at home. 8-)(--)
yeah shielding their eyes when they pop into newsagents for sweets from the tabloids!!! Your mum was suicidial, some people plotted to kidnap you, things the mccanns were happy to go out in the media
This blogger has a very pertinent point
http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/
There is absolutely nothing the McCanns can do about the fact that the twins will have access to everything in this digital age. Suing Amaral is not going to make a whit of difference to anything the twins end up knowing or not knowing. There is no 'before' and 'after' on the internet - what's done is done.
Who knows, maybe Madeleine herself, if she is alive, will use the internet to find out who she is, and that will lead to her eventual discovery. Unlikely, but possible. Would be a very happy irony amidst all the claims and counter claims on freedom of information and expression.
Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?
It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.
yeah shielding their eyes when they pop into newsagents for sweets from the tabloids!!! Your mum was suicidial, some people plotted to kidnap you, things the mccanns were happy to go out in the media
....
Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.
However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?
It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.
I have every sympathy with anyone who has not been able to attend a court hearing, whether it be a judge, witness or a member of a lawyer's family due to unforeseen urgent matters. I do hope that whatever the circumstances were has not proved to be too serious.
What I find a bit odd, in this case, is just how many times this case seems to have been postponed due to such matters.
Granted there is no way of removing from the Internet what Goncalo Amaral (among others) has caused to be there.
However, should Amaral be shown in court to have made unfounded claims, do you not think that in itself will be of value in helping the twins to understand the lack of proof within those claims and possibly counter the claims when they are challenged?
It is, as I have argued before, a very difficult decision whether to challenge in court someone who is damaging your reputation, your family's reputation and in this case the search for a missing child. But a decision must be made on which of the options (do or don't) will be best, and when a person feels the pain of untruthful accusations and wants to remove the stain from themselves that unfounded (and as they believe, untruthful) accusations cause them, there is really only one option. To do nothing is to accept and be seen to accept what you see as lies. To challenge those lies is a risk because you may not (particularly in the Portuguese system) be able to make your case but it is the more honest action. The twins will not only see the unproven theses of Amaral but also that their parents defended the family against his claims.
A very good point, gilet. I have to agree. Proving Amaral's 'lies' would help the McCanns and the twins enormously.
I don't think this court hearing will establish what you refer to, but I've been surprised by the Portuguese legal system before... Also the court that overturned his book ban clearly stated his book hadn't infringed their rights or something like that from memory? Would be hard for this court to overrrule that one I think.
I am also uncertain as to what the court will establish, Portuguese law not being something I have studied. But I have no doubt Isabel Duarte has discussed these matters with her clients.
No matter what is established in reality though, the mere fact that the parents did go and challenge the lies and allegations of Amaral is important. To have chosen not to do so would have put the twins in a more difficult position whatever the outcome.
As for what this court can rule...
The question of human rights, it must be remembered, is not as simple as it initially seems. When dealing with Human Rights and Freedom of Speech then the question of the rights of one person against those of another have to be balanced.
Though Amaral may, as the previous court judged, have the right to publish, this court is taking the further step of now deciding whether the rights of the McCanns to their reputations outweigh the rights of Amaral to make widespread public accusations against them, and whether his publication of a thesis has damaged the search for a missing child.
The two courts are not in fact being asked to judge the same matters at all. It is not a matter of overuling a previous decision but taking it into account as one factor among many in a more complex balancing of rights and responsibilities.
Mr McCann was informed that the hearing had been adjourned because one of the lawyers’ grown up children was unwell
The former police officer’s lawyer, Vitor Santos de Oliveira, applied to halt the hearing on Thursday night, telling the court his son was in hospital.
He said: “My son is having an operation. I hope that because of this you won’t be making a hullabaloo saying that Gonçalo Amaral is holding things up.”
Isabel Duarte, the lawyer who is representing the McCann family said: “It’s not surreal, it’s Portugal.”
“I saw the request to adjourn this morning. The facts are that we have organised the trial and the lawyer was actually here, so I was expecting the trial today. I asked the judge to at least hear my witness.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10340640/Gerry-McCann-frustrated-after-libel-trial-is-suddenly-postponed.html
So WTF, wasn't everyone told, before the hearing today!
I was just looking for this because the one on the ITV page freezes part way through. Thank you for sharing Redblossom ?{)(**
I am also uncertain as to what the court will establish, Portuguese law not being something I have studied. But I have no doubt Isabel Duarte has discussed these matters with her clients.
No matter what is established in reality though, the mere fact that the parents did go and challenge the lies and allegations of Amaral is important. To have chosen not to do so would have put the twins in a more difficult position whatever the outcome.
As for what this court can rule...
The question of human rights, it must be remembered, is not as simple as it initially seems. When dealing with Human Rights and Freedom of Speech then the question of the rights of one person against those of another have to be balanced.
Though Amaral may, as the previous court judged, have the right to publish, this court is taking the further step of now deciding whether the rights of the McCanns to their reputations outweigh the rights of Amaral to make widespread public accusations against them, and whether his publication of a thesis has damaged the search for a missing child.
The two courts are not in fact being asked to judge the same matters at all. It is not a matter of overuling a previous decision but taking it into account as one factor among many in a more complex balancing of rights and responsibilities.
Interesting, the use of the word 'thesis'.
Trademark of gm.
It has yet to be proved that Amaral's and other's basic theory of Madeleine's accidental death is incorrect. The lack of forensic corroboration has not eliminated that possibility by any means, and as for the abduction, no proof at all.
Also, in an investigation, police don't just look at one theory, they will run parallel lines of inquiry ,unless they have undeniable indications of one or more perpetrators of a crime, and that they do not have, that is clear.
The latter paragraph highlights why the SY investigation is a complete waste of money in this case. They have 'persons of interest', well what does that mean exactly ?
Well in the case of SY, it means they don't have a CLUE, IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.
In fairness to SY, Stephen, we don't actually know exactly what they are doing as they've been pretty tight-lipped .
And we have no way of knowing if the little they have given over to the press is some kind of diversion or not.
Thanks for the reply Sherlock.
Time will tell on this one.
Hopefully it will.
Change of modus operandi of all major players, accompanied by PR blackout....
Looks like something is cooking
Three such odd delays caused do seem most odd, though each in itself is almost certainly founded in truth.We have to trust the Judge, she has the signed documents proving the causes of the delays.
Yup, maybe back to the out of court settlement ?
Could they do that in the middle of a trial ?
Yup, maybe back to the out of court settlement ?
Interesting, the use of the word 'thesis'.
Trademark of gm.
It has yet to be proved that Amaral's and other's basic theory of Madeleine's accidental death is incorrect. The lack of forensic corroboration has not eliminated that possibility by any means, and as for the abduction, no proof at all.
Also, in an investigation, police don't just look at one theory, they will run parallel lines of inquiry ,unless they have undeniable indications of one or more perpetrators of a crime, and that they do not have, that is clear.
The latter paragraph highlights why the SY investigation is a complete waste of money in this case. They have 'persons of interest', well what does that mean exactly ?
Well in the case of SY, it means they don't have a CLUE, IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.
It has yet to be proved that Amaral's and other's basic theory of Madeleine's accidental death is incorrect. The lack of forensic corroboration has not eliminated that possibility by any means, and as for the abduction, no proof at all.
Nonsense.
It is conclusively disproved that the McCanns took Madeleine anywhere dead in the car, and from there, the rest of Amaral's thesis falls apart ...
It has yet to be proved that Amaral's and other's basic theory of Madeleine's accidental death is incorrect. The lack of forensic corroboration has not eliminated that possibility by any means, and as for the abduction, no proof at all.
Nonsense.
It is conclusively disproved that the McCanns took Madeleine anywhere dead in the car, and from there, the rest of Amaral's thesis falls apart ...
How is it conclusively disproved? Without going into unpleasant detail, there are a number of ways that this could still have been achieved. You are merely running with your propaganda again. Once again, the results of DNA tests on the residue in the car were not conclusive either way. You are starting to sound a bit desperate.We have to admit that the car thesis attempts to offer a decent solution but is totally implausible.
We have to admit that the car thesis attempts to offer a decent solution but is totally implausible.
We have to admit that the car thesis attempts to offer a decent solution but is totally implausible.
That the McCanns are perfectly happy to let others do their lying for them has been evident ever since they separately and severally fed their kith and kin the line about their holiday apartment having been broken into. They did their own line in perjury though. Kate McCann herself proclaimed before Lord Justice Leveson: 'There were no body fluids' (found in their hire car), despite having long ago attempted to explain away that very discovery as possibly arising from the transportation of soiled nappies, previously worn by bodies no doubt.
That was until quite recently. Michael Wright's testimony in Lisbon on their behalf has since 'pushed the envelope' significantly.
Maybe Wright forgot where he was. Maybe he did not properly understand what he was being called upon to do. The script was so new to him after all, that he had to jot it down on a hotel napkin. Whatever the reason, he is now in the very precarious position of possibly becoming a defendant himself, should Goncalo Amaral, win lose or draw, exercise his right to sue Mr Michael Wright for giving false testimony against him (we shall come to the specifics in due course).
First a word or two about correlations; those slippery statistical things that, even when significant, prove nothing (see: www. correlated.org). They are often appealed to as indices though, just like the behaviour of sniffer dogs in fact. And what might the principle of correlation have to do with the McCanns vs. Amaral? Gerry McCann, newly arrived on the scene, gives us a clue:
GM - "The law has changed, and I think that Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced, and what we have gone through, the facts of the file and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."
Notice that his conclusion is not 'the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine by Goncalo Amaral’s book'. That might just have been untrue, the more especially if the court should eventually find otherwise. Furthermore, 'damage' is left clinging to the lifeboat of 'the facts of the files', which Kate and Gerry 'know better than anyone else' just as they do 'what they have experienced'. Which raises the obvious question as to why those with such superior knowledge did not elect to speak for themselves in the first place? (Could it have had something to do with point one above, perhaps?).
It rather appears that Gerry McCann, having watched proceedings from a safe distance, has been parachuted in to provide additional data; data that will strengthen the correlation earlier witnesses, including Michael Wright, have laboured in vain to establish - the three-way correlation (as yet unspoken by Gerry McCann, who is obviously saving himself for the witness stand) between Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie', the McCanns' interminable suffering, and the damage done to the 'search' for Madeleine (whether defined as a brand or an activity is unclear).
The story so far is that, according to the McCanns' writ, an unquantifiable degree of damage and suffering (unquantifiable except in terms of financial compensation demanded) can be attributed, directly or indirectly, to the publication of the Amaral book. Several witnesses for the McCanns having now been heard, this putatively indisputable association appears somewhat less convincing, especially given the earlier, widespread announcement of the McCanns' arguido status and immediate release to the public of the process files upon relaxation of this status in 2008, the year in which A Verdade Da Mentira, to give it its Portuguese title, was published.
A major difficulty for the McCann case therefore is the impossibility of disentangling these, shall we say, causal elements, in order to apportion 'effect' with any degree of accuracy. And that's just as regards Portugal, both productions being in Portuguese in the first instance. Hence we have heard attempts to convince the court that the Goncalo's book is the more credible/influential on account of its being easier to read and digest, say, in a day. The significance of the all-important correlation is therefore weakened. From being 'entirely responsible' the book is inevitably down-graded to 'largely responsible' - at worst, if at all, given that quantitative attestation has so far been conspicuously absent from any witness testimony to date (no doubt that is what Gerry McCann intends to bring to the table). The issue does not rest there however.
The 'search' for Madeleine McCann has been considered a worldwide activity since her parents first stepped aboard that hired Learjet on their tour of Europe, and then 'did America'. If that nasty paperback edition of the Algarve Police Gazette (or the film of the book) had any meaningful effect upon its readers' searching intentions, that effect would have been restricted to Portugal, Brazil and one or two African communities. To maximize the return on their investment in proceedings, the McCanns need to be rewarded (compensated seems altogether inappropriate a term) for damage to their search elsewhere on planet earth. All English speaking zones should cover it, i.e., virtually everywhere else. Except everywhere else doesn't speak or read Portuguese necessarily.
And so we begin to close in on Michael Wright's folly.
It is difficult to apportion individual effectiveness, should two or more publications on a single subject emerge at around the same time (e.g., Newton - Leibniz, Darwin - Wallace). Better, in principle, if there is a lapse of time in-between, following which one can assess any influential change(s) occasioned by subsequent accounts. The histrionic Ms Stilwell, who might care to reflect upon what happened to her namesake Frank after he shot Morgan Earp in the back (they almost lost count of the bullet holes Morgan's brother Wyatt put in his body), would have it that there was a rebellious upsurge of anti-McCann feeling following introduction of Amaral's material to the world. She is, however, wholly unable to offer evidence in support of such a claim. Just like those witnesses who have preceded her.
One of those witnesses was Michael Wright, whom we know, thanks to the astuteness of the lady judge, was 'coached' before giving evidence. His approach to the complete absence of reliable data on search and suffering effects (those phenomena obviously more familiar to the McCanns) was to broaden the contiguous alignment of 'The Truth of the Lie' and the official files (the Portuguese scenario), so as to embrace translations available via the internet, English in particular, and endeavour to push home the claim that the book took precedence in the public mind. Of course for that situation to pertain, the relevant materials had to be publicly available at the same time.
As we have seen, Michael Wright, clearly influenced as much by his understanding as his knowledge, has made two very specific claims on the McCanns' behalf, viz:
'They knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published.'
'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'
Whereas attention was previously drawn to the possible unreliability of this 'evidence' in the light of the McCanns' own admissions, come September 2008, that neither of them had bothered to read the book in question, one may now be altogether more specific. It wasn't the McCanns who lied on this occasion, but Wright, who lied to the court.
The translation that appears on the Internet is taken from the French version of Goncalo Amaral's book, L'Enquête Interdite - 'The Forbidden Investigation'. The French edition of the book was not published until 03 May 2009. There has never been a translation from the Portuguese. And in case anyone should protest that Wright had the English narration of the broadcast documentary in mind, that programme did not materialise until April 2009 either.
Exactly what translation of A Verdade Da Mentira does Michael Wright believe he discovered on the Internet in August 2008 therefore; a translation communicated to the McCanns that very month and which, for their part, they did not read?
Not only should Wright's testimony be stricken from the record, but it should be regarded as prejudicial to that of any other of the McCanns' witnesses who appeal to the same 'translated' source in support of whatever claim they might make (or have made) regarding supposed adverse effects upon the plaintiffs.
As for Michael Wright, the best advice one might offer is 'Lawyer-up mate!' That's what funds (sorry, friends) are for, is it not?
Why do you think that? It is quite possible she has already made a lengthy submission.
BTW, calling her Mrs Healy is a rather moronic insult. It does not help debate or understanding and is only used to make a silly point.
Oh dear debunker, got that wrong.
I was referring to mother healy, mother of Mrs. mccann. 8((()*/
Kate's mother was not able to to speak at the trial because of a mistake by the McCann lawyer ?Isabel Duarte forgot to reintroduce Mrs Healy. The day the judge had a personal problem and couldn't attend in the afternoon, Isabel Duarte had to ask her witnesses when they could come back and see if it was compatible with the court's schedule, finally she said that Mrs Healy would be dismissed. Then for some reason she changed her mind but she forgot to make a new request and the judge this morning rejected the witness for reasons you'll read in my report.
Is that correct ?
Isabel Duarte forgot to reintroduce Mrs Healy. The day the judge had a personal problem and couldn't attend in the afternoon, Isabel Duarte had to ask her witnesses when they could come back and see if it was compatible with the court's schedule, finally she said that Mrs Healy would be dismissed. Then for some reason she changed her mind but she forgot to make a new request and the judge this morning rejected the witness for reasons you'll read in my report.
Thankyou AnneI suffered a lot with Trish Cameron, I understood a word in five ! I had practically to rely on the interpreter.
Looking forward to your report gratefully
They certainly seem unable to face Gerry, dont they?
They wouldn't have had a choice if Gerry had followed proper court procedure and made it clear he wanted to testify when the list of witnesses was provided to the court
Why didn't he do that ?
Instead, we had Isobel Duarte saying that the McCanns themselves did not 'need' to give evidence
Whats that got to do with Madelienes parents not being relevant to the case?
I thought Amaral said he wanted to have Gerry in the dock?
If this judge allows Gonc to preach who should and shouldn't be heard, then she's been got at.
Thankyou AnneI tried to send a picture for those with good eyes, but I don't think it works.
Looking forward to your report gratefully
oh dear
... now the Judge is 'out to get' the McCanns too ?
oh dear
... now the Judge is 'out to get' the McCanns too ?
I don't know how to send them bigger. This one doesn't need it.Who is that Anne/ Is it Kates Mum?
Poor Mrs Healy was there as if she wasn't. The picture expresses this.
Can you believe it?
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 3h
After trial adjourned Amaral reveals he, like Gerry #McCann, has applied to the judge to give evidence
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 3h
Asked how #McCann libel trial was going Amaral said: ``There's a saying in Portugal that you only give forecasts at the end of the game.''
This is interesting
I wonder which of them was first to express a desire to take the stand
I have to say, in Gerry's case it all seemed a bit of a disoraganised last minute mess
Could it be that having discovered that Amaral was intending to give testimony, he ( Gerry ) felt he, too, would 'have' to take the stand ? ( it would explain what appeared to be a last minute change of direction in the McCann plan of action )
More likely that Amaral is playing catch up.
This is interestingYou always seem to see things in a twisted way, Icabod.
I wonder which of them was first to express a desire to take the stand
I have to say, in Gerry's case it all seemed a bit of a disoraganised last minute mess
Could it be that having discovered that Amaral was intending to give testimony, he ( Gerry ) felt he, too, would 'have' to take the stand ? ( it would explain what appeared to be a last minute change of direction in the McCann plan of action )
You always seem to see things in a twisted way, Icabod.
Why is that?
Could be
It just seems that there is something of 'being on the back foot' about the McCanns at this point
Another bad day for them at court today ... what with having a witness deemed as unacceptable by the Judge as a result of a cock-up by Duarte
Kate's mother was not able to to speak at the trial because of a mistake by the McCann lawyer ?
Is that correct ?
Personally, I don't think it would make a lot of difference whether either of them give evidence, but who knows? I would certainly think that from Amaral's point of view, there is not a lot he could say that his lawyers couldn't say on his behalf.
Madeleine's parents pain at losing her was 'multiplied 100 times' by police chief's book >@@(*&)
So over the top it's gone Brass Eye now.
More likely that Amaral is playing catch up.
Because I see things differently to you, sadie, does not mean that it is my perspective that is 'twisted'
I tried and it didn't work, DCI. Anyhow I sent pictures to John. This one is a stolen photograph, you're not allowed to take pictures inside of the Palácio da Justiça, I was about to delete it and then found it expressed what happened to Mrs Healy to-day. But the 3 British left in a rather good mood, much better than the weather. Mrs Duarte though had a gloomy face.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/tia-acredita-que-maddie-esta-viva
Child's family is in Portugal
Aunt believes that Maddie is alive
In a session held on Wednesday, in which Gerry McCann have not been heard, Aunt Madeleine McCann said he does not believe in the book of Gonçalo Amaral.
The older sister of Gerry McCann, Maddie's father, was heard on Wednesday, at the Palace of Justice in Lisbon. Aunt Maddie described to the court the time of suffering the child's parents when the book of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral - 'The Truth of the Lie' - was published.
"Kate was very low and Gerry did not believe it," said Trish Cameron, Aunt Maddie, adding he did not believe anything the book says. "There is a missing girl and there is someone trying to fool people by saying that the girl is dead," he said.
Gerry McCann also appeared at the trial session, which would testify. Maddie's father did not, however, an opportunity to testify in court, because the judge does not grant its request to speak.
In response, the defense attorney Gonçalo Amaral downplayed the possibility of Gerry McCann give evidence, stating that they are not relevant to the case.
Remember that Maddie's father is in Portugal to witness in the case against Goncalo Amaral. Parents of missing girl seeking compensation of 1.2 million euros to former PJ inspector for damage caused by the book 'The Truth of the Lie'.
In his book, Gonçalo Amaral says Maddie McCann is already dead and that her parents hid the body.
Not relevant to the case, is he round the bend, or scared sh***less?
I'm not a legal eagle but how can GM not be relevant to the case? I've heard it all now. >@@(*&)
The text in Portuguese: Em reacção, o advogado de defesa de Gonçalo Amaral desvalorizou a possibilidade de Gerry McCann prestar declarações, afirmando que não são relevantes para o processo".
In reaction, Gonçalo Amaral's defense lawyer gives little importance to the possibility of Gerry McCann making statements, afirming that they (the statements) are not relevant to the case.
The text in Portuguese: Em reacção, o advogado de defesa de Gonçalo Amaral desvalorizou a possibilidade de Gerry McCann prestar declarações, afirmando que não são relevantes para o processo".
In reaction, Gonçalo Amaral's defense lawyer gives little importance to the possibility of Gerry McCann making statements, afirming that they (the statements) are not relevant to the case.
For someone whose testimony they pay such little heed to, they've gone to extraordinarily great lengths to stop him testifying ...
The text in Portuguese: Em reacção, o advogado de defesa de Gonçalo Amaral desvalorizou a possibilidade de Gerry McCann prestar declarações, afirmando que não são relevantes para o processo".
In reaction, Gonçalo Amaral's defense lawyer gives little importance to the possibility of Gerry McCann making statements, afirming that they (the statements) are not relevant to the case.
Didn't the McCanns and their own lawyer do that?
The McCanns and their lawyer had nothing to do with this impediment to Santos' grown-up son ...
Mr Oliveira also asked if she was aware that 70% of British people in August 2007 condemned the couple for having left the children alone on the night Madeleine disappeared, to which she replied: "No I did not know that."
Bullsh&t.
70% of CMOMM sounds more likely.
Mr Oliveira also asked if she was aware that 70% of British people in August 2007 condemned the couple for having left the children alone on the night Madeleine disappeared, to which she replied: "No I did not know that."
Bullsh&t.
70% of CMOMM sounds more likely.
The McCanns and their lawyer had nothing to do with this impediment to Santos' grown-up son ...
Do you know when this survey was carried out, and by whom or is it a forum poll I wonder?
The McCanns' pain over the disappearance of their daughter was "multiplied 100 times" by a book by a former Portuguese police chief, a court has heard.
Gerry McCann's sister Trish Cameron said he and wife Kate had been left in "purgatory" by the disappearance of Madeleine and claims that they were somehow involved.
Speaking at the libel trial of former police chief Goncalo Amaral, Mrs Cameron said the publication of his book in 2008 and a TV documentary based on it the following year caused the family to be "vilified" and "demonised".
And she said Madeleine's twin siblings Sean and Amelie, now eight, were aware of them by comments made by fellow pupils at their school.
"My brother and sister-in-law live in purgatory because they have no end and they are looking for the truth," she told the court.
"They would like an end but there is no end because they don't know what's happened."
The McCanns say the former detective's claims in the book The Truth Of The Lie, including suggestions that they hid their daughter's body after she died in an accident and faked an abduction, damaged the hunt for Madeleine and exacerbated their anguish.
If successful the family stands to gain around £1 million in damages.
Mrs Cameron, whose voice cracked as she gave evidence, said: "They were vilified in this book so their distress was multiplied 100 times.
"This pain was felt by all of their family because we still have a missing child and we knew that what is in there is not true."
The nurse, from Glasgow, travelled to Lisbon with brother Gerry, who has applied to give evidence in the case.
No decision was made today and other legal teams are thought to have until October 16 to give their views before the judge's decision.
As Mr McCann left court at lunchtime, he said: "Obviously it's disappointing, but we will just keep going."
Mrs Cameron told the court that she travelled to Portugal after her brother told her about Madeleine's disappearance in May 2007, spending three months there with him and Kate, and later continuing to help them as they struggled to cope.
She described how her brother called her in a "cry for help" when Mr Amaral's book was published.
She described how a family "rota" to help the couple when they first returned from Portugal had to be reinstated in the aftermath of the publication in July 2008.
"Kate was in a very low mood, she was not coping with daily things," she said.
"She was doing solitary things, almost like torturing herself, out running long, long distances by herself.
"She was going to church and praying on a daily basis, and she was sleeping for a long time too.
"She wouldn't go out socially at all, she would not go to a shop.
"We had to help with practical things like the shopping and cooking and looking after the children to help her."
The effects of the book were worse than when the McCanns were made arguidos, or formal suspects, she said.
"This was a different thing. It was much more conclusive and demonising them, dehumanising them, saying they did not care for their children, that they were responsible.
"It makes it out that they weren't truthful and they have been vilified and it's very hard to turn round opinion about them that has been so widely spread."
She told the court the Portuguese people had "turned against" the McCanns, saying Mr McCann had been jeered at in the street when he returned to Portugal in April 2009, and was advised to hire security.
"This (the book) perhaps gave people a conclusion, but it's not the right conclusion, it's all lies," she said.
She said the couple had only started to socialise again in the last year or two but are more comfortable in people's houses "where they are not being watched or scrutinised".
And asked if twins Sean and Amelie knew about the book and the TV programme, she said: "Last week Amelie came in from school and said some people had been talking about it.
"She said that people were talking about them at school, and that it was not all good things that had been said.
"In the past Sean has come in and said to Gerry, 'daddy are you famous?' .
"Gerry said, 'why are you asking that?', and he said because a boy at school had seen him on the television.
"Gerry continued doing what he was doing and said, 'no I'm not famous, it's because your sister is missing'."
Kate McCann's mother Susan Healy, who also travelled to the court, was expected to give evidence today but it emerged that the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte had previously dismissed all of her English-speaking witnesses other than Mrs Cameron, but forgotten the request amidst the confusion of the case.
Madeleine, who was then nearly four, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3 2007 as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.
Mr Amaral, who initially led the inquiry into her disappearance, was removed from the Portuguese investigation in October 2007 after criticising the British police.
He has also applied to give evidence at the trial.
Under cross-examination from the former police chief's lawyer Vitor Oliveira, Mrs Cameron was asked if she was aware of a petition, signed by 17,000 people in England, in January 2008 calling for social services to investigate the McCanns for leaving their children alone.
"I had heard of it, yes," she said. "They were not happy about it and they took action to counteract it."
Mr Oliveira also asked if she was aware that 70% of British people in August 2007 condemned the couple for having left the children alone on the night Madeleine disappeared, to which she replied: "No I did not know that."
The case, at the Palace of Justice in Lisbon, was adjourned to next Tuesday after hearing evidence from Eduardo Damaso, deputy editor of Portuguese tabloid Correio da Manha.
It is expected to finish hearing evidence in November.
British detectives launched a fresh investigation into the youngster's disappearance in July this year - two years into a review of the case - and believe she could still be alive.
The Portuguese investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is officially closed.
Probably what the defence did.
I don't.
Just like the defence.
So stop talking complete garbage then, it has no place here.
Stop being so rude please. My posts have as much right to be here as yours thank you.
Mr Oliveira also asked if she was aware that 70% of British people in August 2007 condemned the couple for having left the children alone on the night Madeleine disappeared, to which she replied: "No I did not know that."
Bullsh&t.
70% of CMOMM sounds more likely.
You posted a simple opinion. That opinion was shown to be pure conjecture and you attempted to mitigate that by drawing a parallel with another personal opinion on what you think the defence is doing in this case. No evidence, nothing plausible, just noise and yet another attempt at McCann bashing. There are forums where you will get plaudits for doing such things. This is not one of them, thankfully.
Have you been promoted?
«Esther Addley, sub-editor of The Guardian agrees "it was not edifying, nor admirable" what was written and said in the United Kingdom about the case.
"But when we have so many journalists trying to get the slightest piece of news it is at that time that we risk things getting out of control", she notes.
Only one day after the 3rd of May of 2007, the issue was the opening news of all channels and on the front cover of all British newspapers - without speaking of the Portuguese, Spanish and even German or Japanese - and the little village in Algarve was invaded by journalists.
Some of the interest generated in the public was due, according to Adley, to the fact that several people identified themselves with the situation, which led the journalists to show empathy with the case.
"It is a story that affects many people because it is a medium class story, a nightmare to go to a calm tourist resort and a child goes missing", she justifies.
But Greenslade, actually a teacher in the City University, London, understands that the posture grew, first to a phase of scepticism, "which is the right attitude that should be adopted by journalists and after to distrust when they were treated as suspects".
In his opinion this is the dominant position now because the newspapers reflect the doubts and reproach of the readers concerning the McCanns.
"The great majority of people in United Kingdom thinks that they should not have left their children (alone), he says quoting numbers of a poll made in the Internet for the Sunday Times in August of 2007, when around 70% of the British condemned the couple for leaving the children alone.
The tendency is proved by the large number of hostile comments received on the Sky News website about the issue, that refers to Lusa the journalist Martin Brunt is superior to the messages of support.
But the news channel's crime correspondent considers that the British press continues, in general, to support the McCanns and the criticism was redirected against the Portuguese police due to the idea of facing a "weak police investigation".
"The difficulty of knowing with exactitude what the police were doing led to criticism of the press and to the impression that the investigation was not going anywhere", he says.
An important changing moment in the way the the case was covered was the action initiated by the McCanns against the Express group, Daily Mirror and Daily Star, that were obliged to apologise and to pay a financial compensation.»
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id99.html
Yeah that has a different slant on it, I agree. But... I still would like to hear "from the horse's mouth" as it were. I have to disagree with GA's lawyer. It would have been far better for the McCanns to appear personally and speak.
And scroll down here to the end, entitled Note on Law, seems GM will be questioned by the judge if and when he gives his statement
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/gerry-mccann-unable-to-testify-for.html
And let me guess the first question. "Mr. McCann, why have you suddenly decided it is vital for you to be heard in this court when there was no prior interest in so doing?"
Mr. McCann, why have you suddenly decided it is vital for you to be heard in this court when there was no prior interest in so doing?"
Sorry M'Lord did you not know about the new legislation that was passed on the 1st September?
Why didn't Amaral's lawyer, thought he wanted to tell the world about something up his sleeve thought he would've has his name on the list from the start. Seems he wants to get in on the action too now, can't think why?
Yes....and you cant not give a straight answer or waffle offside n a court to a judge lol
Im wondering if Duarte is out of her depth overall..or their strategy/tactics were not 100%....or were thwarted by, well apart from their own witness testimonies! Or somethng else..the shenanigans with Susan Healy are wierd....one of her witnesses then decides to give her up, substitute? with Gerry? then changes her mind but forgets to reapply to the court to have her as witness so judge refused to let her testify, all sounding a bit of a dogs dinner to me
The text in Portuguese: Em reacção, o advogado de defesa de Gonçalo Amaral desvalorizou a possibilidade de Gerry McCann prestar declarações, afirmando que não são relevantes para o processo".I wonder where Santos Oliveira said this. Not in the court room anyhow. I vaguely heard him outside of the court saying to journalists he had deposited his opinion on that matter, but wouldn't of course reveal it because his 3 colleagues hadn't yet decided.
In reaction, Gonçalo Amaral's defense lawyer gives little importance to the possibility of Gerry McCann making statements, afirming that they (the statements) are not relevant to the case.
At last - we agree on something (thud). What with witnesses not being allowed to speak through no fault of their own and then being turned away on technicalities and because it doesn't suit the timescales, the little faith I did have in the Portuguese justice system is quickly fading away to zero.
Where did article come from? I just noticed that they did not report on Eduardo Damâso's testimony, who was a witness for the McCanns. For what he said he might as well have been a witness for Gonçalo Amaral. I do not understand what the strategy is for this trial. The parents call witnesses, such as Alípio Ribeiro and Melchior gomes and now Eduardo Damâso, who add nothing to their case and even go against them.That article is rather complete about what Mrs ex-Cameron said. Is it the Telegraph ?
too conspiratorial benice........even for you....gerry had no right to expect to be heard hours after his application was put in......courts do not jump to anyone who asks them to, not in portugal not in uk
Well you are entitled to your opinion Red, but it seems to me that their priorities are back to front and upside down on the legal front. When witnesses are prevented from giving evidence through no fault of their own, i.e. the Judge doesn't turn up or for whatever reason - then surely it should go without saying that they will be allowed to have their say at some later date?
BTW I am the last person in the world to be a conspiracy theorist.
No one has been denied for ever more from having their say, maybe mrs healy cos the lawyer cocked up
It would appear Mrs Healy has. It wasn't her fault she couldn't have her say, and IMO there is no valid reason why she should not automatically be allowed to do so at a later date in those circumstances. It would appear that adhering to a timetable and the technicalities of court procedure is more important than the actual case itself. Unbelievable.
have you not been reading? Duarte gave Mrs Healy up as a witness and or substituted Mr Mccann instead, then changed her mind and wanted Mrs Healy again but forgot to make an application to the court,to have her as a witness again, thats why she wasnt allowed to be heard today.....yes unbelievable
But that's the whole point - i.e. A legal system where the fact that a technicality (ID's forgetfulness) can actually prevent an important witness from taking the stand is wrong IMO and has lost sight of the reasons why they are all there in the first place.
But that's the whole point - i.e. A legal system where the fact that a technicality (ID's forgetfulness) can actually prevent an important witness from taking the stand is wrong IMO and has lost sight of the reasons why they are all there in the first place.But everywhere it's easier to find a formal error than to judge on a delicate matter.
Playing games with cites is effectively losing the argument.
Before Amaral's witnesses take the stand you mean ?
Could be
How could they do it though ? ... I mean the photo Anne took outside the court was as innocent as you get
Compare it with the guidance the McCanns give their supporters on the official website :
If you think you see Madeleine
5 ) If possible, discretely take video or photo evidence to be examined by police
How can Isabel Duarte object so vehemently about an innocuos photo taken outside the court room, whilst supporting the 'search' her clients have undertaken where the surreptitious videoing and photographing of children is requested ?
But everywhere it's easier to find a formal error than to judge on a delicate matter.
I felt sorry for Mrs Healy. Actually I felt sorry for all the McCann witnesses because I'm not sure this trial has been properly prepared and I doubt they've been informed of the content of the AG report. I've observed, amazed, the mistakes of a lawyer I suspect is more interested in her autopromotion than in working hard to win the case.
What makes you think that?Basic mistakes (Mrs Healy "lapsus", Mr Wright's document) in a high profile and high budget trial.
True... the stories about never giving up their search for their daughter and how much they regret and suffer for the choice they made in PDL -Yes I'd say those were true.
The rest are mostly anti guff.
I love that word guff ?>)()<
But would you say they actually felt 100 times worse than that because of a book? A spin too far I think.
I don't know the detailed history of how many times Amaral has delayed the proceedings in the past.
Sick Lawyer, No Lawyer etc each time Trial delayed.
This latest one Judge suddenly leaving Court due to personal stuff...
Amarals Lawyer suddenly leaving due to personal stuff...
Witnesses for the McCanns not heard, then not allowed...including Gerry McCann.
How anyone can say his input isn't relevant is well quite shocking. If anyone knows how badly Amarals book affected the search and the family it would be him.
God knows what will happen next week. >@@(*&)
Thats down to I Duarte (cock up) and or the law (no cock up)
I don't know the detailed history of how many times Amaral has delayed the proceedings in the past.
Sick Lawyer, No Lawyer etc each time Trial delayed.
This latest one Judge suddenly leaving Court due to personal stuff...
Amarals Lawyer suddenly leaving due to personal stuff...
Witnesses for the McCanns not heard, then not allowed...including Gerry McCann.
How anyone can say his input isn't relevant is well quite shocking. If anyone knows how badly Amarals book affected the search and the family it would be him.
God knows what will happen next week. >@@(*&)
I don't know the detailed history of how many times Amaral has delayed the proceedings in the past.
Sick Lawyer, No Lawyer etc each time Trial delayed.
This latest one Judge suddenly leaving Court due to personal stuff...
Amarals Lawyer suddenly leaving due to personal stuff...
Witnesses for the McCanns not heard, then not allowed...including Gerry McCann.
How anyone can say his input isn't relevant is well quite shocking. If anyone knows how badly Amarals book affected the search and the family it would be him.
God knows what will happen next week. >@@(*&)
All Amarals delays/postponements are down to Ms.Duarte? You sure of that?
I hope he gets his say. My little bit of speculation is this: The judge was getting rather annoyed at Dr Mccann demanding to be heard with a days notice (which came across as quite arrogant to me) and took it out on Mrs Healy. It seems unreasonable to not allow her to be heard, considering how far she had to travel. It smacks a little of showing who's in control. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just not terribly fair on Mrs Healy.
I wonder if she'd have been allowed to testify if the Gerry hadn't put in a last minute request?
I don't think that I heard anyone saying Gerry McCann demanded anything of the sort.
So Gonçalo Amaral is responsible for the fact that Isabel Duarte committed a blunder? He is responsible for the fact that the judge had a personal matter to attend to? He is responsible for the fact that his lawyer's son was being operated? He is responsible for the fact that the trial was suspended, at the McCanns' request, in January this year? The judge will make her decision as to whether Gerry McCann and Gonçao Amaral will speak at the trial in accordance with the law. Also, Mrs. Healey will not be allowed to testify because Isabel Duarte did not respect the rules of the court. The same applies to Marinho e Pinto who did not comply with the 10 day limit to make known his decision to send a written statement instead of testifying. Now, he will have to testify. If you start ignoring the rules it's chaos and arbitrary, with different rules for the different parties.Agree everyone should stick to the same rules and be afforded the same courtesies.
You're quite right. It was a request, not a demand. I stand corrected. Turning up was a little premature though. I'm sure he'd have been aware that there's a five day wait between a request and a decision.
So Gonçalo Amaral is responsible for the fact that Isabel Duarte committed a blunder? He is responsible for the fact that the judge had a personal matter to attend to? He is responsible for the fact that his lawyer's son was being operated? He is responsible for the fact that the trial was suspended, at the McCanns' request, in January this year? The judge will make her decision as to whether Gerry McCann and Gonçao Amaral will speak at the trial in accordance with the law. Also, Mrs. Healey will not be allowed to testify because Isabel Duarte did not respect the rules of the court. The same applies to Marinho e Pinto who did not comply with the 10 day limit to make known his decision to send a written statement instead of testifying. Now, he will have to testify. If you start ignoring the rules it's chaos and arbitrary, with different rules for the different parties.
Maybe he was hoping - we know how things change suddenly over there. Either way he was there supporting his sister and mother in law.
Maybe he was hoping - we know how things change suddenly over there. Either way he was there supporting his sister and mother in law.
But that's the whole point - i.e. A legal system where the fact that a technicality (ID's forgetfulness) can actually prevent an important witness from taking the stand is wrong IMO and has lost sight of the reasons why they are all there in the first place.
You're quite right. It was a request, not a demand. I stand corrected. Turning up was a little premature though. I'm sure he'd have been aware that there's a five day wait between a request and a decision.
HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW ON THE CASE.
'That case has been privileged to unprecedented media coverage (for the type), it has been world news on and off (more on than off) ever since the child disappeared, don't Scotland Yard see that all options have been exhausted and that is the reason the case was archived? How much more public money are they intending to waste before they stop this ridiculous masquerade?
It's like a dormant volcano - just waiting to erupt at the slightest provocation.'
HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW ON THE CASE.
'That case has been privileged to unprecedented media coverage (for the type), it has been world news on and off (more on than off) ever since the child disappeared, don't Scotland Yard see that all options have been exhausted and that is the reason the case was archived? How much more public money are they intending to waste before they stop this ridiculous masquerade?
It's like a dormant volcano - just waiting to erupt at the slightest provocation.'
I think referring to Maddie as "the child" is an absolute disgrace
I think referring to Maddie as "the child" is an absolute disgrace
Well I'm glad you took the time to come in and tell us that, it's greatly enhanced the thread. Perhaps you could write to your MP? A strongly-worded letter should get things off your chest 8((()*/
You do realise those aren't Stephen's words, right? The quote marks give it away. Some people don't like to personalise things by using names as though they know people. Some don't like to use "Gerry" or "Kate" as it implies familiarity. Maybe the poster Stephen quoted feels the same way about Madeleine. Who, let's not forget, hated to be called "Maddie" as you keep doing.
As the trial has now begun hearing from Defence witnesses I fear Gerry McCann has lost any opportunity he ever might have had to testify. You never know though...it is Portugal. 8(0(*
ps The Henrique Machado evidence shortly!
As the trial has now begun hearing from Defence witnesses I fear Gerry McCann has lost any opportunity he ever might have had to testify. You never know though...it is Portugal. 8(0(*
ps The Henrique Machado evidence shortly!
Is that right? I've lost track a bit as the last thing I saw was Trish Cameron's testimony. Where are we up to now?
Remind me who Machado is please John.
Delays and postponements happen all the time in court cases. There is nothing sinister about it. A few years ago, I was to be a witness on behalf of the company I worked for at the time. I went to the courthouse in Portimão with the other witnesses and lawyer and I never saw the inside of the courtroom. Twice it was postponed and the third time the two parties came to an agreement.
Pardon me for thinking that from the begining of this this case Amarals side seemed to have more delays/ postponements than normal.
I think referring to Maddie as "the child" is an absolute disgrace
He gave a press conference iirc saying he'd wanted to talk that day and was disappointed at not being heard. My opinion is that it seems a little on the arrogant side to assume you can just turn up and have your say without going through the correct process.I must say that, on last Wednesday, Mr McCann kept a low profile. He didn't enter the court room when his sister was taking the stand. He was sitting in a big hall outside the courtroom, whereas Mrs Healy was sitting in the ground floor main hall. He looked like kindly accompanying two ladies.
Having said that, I hope that he does get to have his say when the request is properly dealt with.
I haven't had a chance to read everything which has been posted this afternoon but it is rather telling what the honourable Judge had to say on Wednesday about the possibility of Mrs Healey testifying.Mrs Duarte wasn't smart on that issue. She provided the sticks to be beaten with. Why did she say in almost the same sentence that she had given up Mrs Healy and that Mrs Healy had important facts to reveal ? That didn't make sense. I can tell that through the intonation of her voice it was clear she wasn't pleading her witnesses' cause. It was as if she didn't mind ! I was shocked. Was she like this out of pride, because of the shame to have forgotten she didn't want to admit ?
Following an observation by Amaral lawyer Dr Santos de Oliveira to the effect that Mrs Healey's evidence mustn't have been so important since Isabel Duarte chose to give her up in the first place. The Judge said that Isabel Duarte had relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She added that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore didn't give permission for the witness to be called.
Oh dear!! 8(8-))
I haven't had a chance to read everything which has been posted this afternoon but it is rather telling what the honourable Judge had to say on Wednesday about the possibility of Mrs Healey testifying.
Following an observation by Amaral lawyer Dr Santos de Oliveira to the effect that Mrs Healey's evidence mustn't have been so important since Isabel Duarte chose to give her up in the first place. The Judge said that Isabel Duarte had relinquished all additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She added that the production of testimony evidence up until now does not lead the Court to believe that the witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to the discussion about the case considering her relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore didn't give permission for the witness to be called.
Oh dear!! 8(8-))
It is interesting that the Judge, when deciding on the relevance of Mrs Healy's testimony, referred to her 'relationship with Kate'
Does the Judge consider that testimony given by those closely related to the McCanns is of less value than that of independant witnesses ?
That must of some concern to the McCann legal team, given that most of their witneses have close personal ties with the McCanns
If this book had an effect (and I admit it had, though I can't conceive loosing a daughter hadn't the worst of all possible effects), then it had one on all the close members of the family, the grand mothers, the grand father, the uncles and aunts on the father side. It's difficult to discriminate between your own pain and the compassionate pain you feel for those you love.
The McCanns have never claimed the book or documentary caused them more pain than Madeleine's abduction.
Close family members are the people who would be spending the greatest amount of time with Kate and Gerry , and who would know them better than anyone else - and so by definition are best qualilfied to say how deeply they were affected, regardless of their own feelings.
As a point of interest Anne (off topic slightly) you say you had difficulty understanding the Glaswegian accent. Do you think that any interpretor would have the same difficulty? I'm thinking of the problems that situation may have posed during interviews, with an interpretor having to contend with Gerry's accent and Gerry having to contend with a translator's Portuguese accent? I've always believed the language barrier was a reason for misunderstandings which would simply not have happened if it hadn't existed.
Must go to bed now - so will catch up tomorrow.
Goodnight Anne.
Gerry may have an irritating glaswegian accent, but he's hardly a Rab C Nesbitt
Gerry may have an irritating glaswegian accent, but he's hardly a Rab C Nesbitt
I'm not saying he is. But as an English person who is used to hearing the Scottish accent - I can sometimes have a problem understanding what has just been said. Surely to a Portuguese translator, who has probably never encountered even a slight Glaswegian accent before - an accent is even more likely to increase the possibility of misunderstandings.
I actually quite like Dr Mccanns accent. I really don't think it's very strong. Whether it would have an impact on a translator is another matter though. Weren't the original translations done by an anglophone?
I actually quite like Dr Mccanns accent. I really don't think it's very strong. Whether it would have an impact on a translator is another matter though. Weren't the original translations done by an anglophone?
I'm not saying he is. But as an English person who is used to hearing the Scottish accent - I can sometimes have a problem understanding what has just been said. Surely to a Portuguese translator, who has probably never encountered even a slight Glaswegian accent before - an accent is even more likely to increase the possibility of misunderstandings.The interpreter is British, speaks quite well Portuguese and also French. I asked her if she had difficulty to understand Mrs Cameron, and she said she had none at all (before any session she has a chat with the witness outside of the court room, precisely to get accustomed to the eventual accent).
I would agree, his accent is not very strong. He is an educated man, living in England, so it is likely that his accent has been weakened. Those of his family who still live in Scotland may have a stronger accent.Yes, I've no difficulty to understand him. My children found his accent so funny that they spent hours imitating it in 2007.
Gerry has a reasonably soft Glaswegian accent.
We have a Glaswegian friend, also a hospital consultant in England, who is not only very anti anything English, but has an accent so strong that it truly is hard to comprehend.
I am quite deaf and can no longer watch American films cos i cant understand them any more. Crazy !
I can fully understand that a French person hearing a Glaswegian talking might find it difficult.
I must say that I applaud Anne for her language skills 8@??)(, but altho good, they are not good enough for the task she has set herself. There is plenty about the english language that she clearly doesn't understand
For the task she is undertaking, her english needs to be perfect . And she MUST be unbiased and totally honest.
..... edited out unacceptable comment ...
Despite this ... Bravo for trying Anne.
But I aint taking too much notice of it. Personally, I will wait for the official reports.
It's fine to be sceptical and if you choose to wait for official reports that's fine too. It doesn't seem very fair to knock someone for trying though, or to cast aspersions on their character.Thank you, Cariad, yes you don't need to say, I know.
I'm very grateful to Anne for the time and effort she's put in. I don't mention it in every thread though, cause that would be as inappropriate as your post.
The fact you are trying so desperately hard to put her down suggests we canThe truth has been before your eyes. I am only presenting facts.
As a point of interest Anne (off topic slightly) you say you had difficulty understanding the Glaswegian accent. Do you think that any interpreter would have the same difficulty? I'm thinking of the problems that situation may have posed during interviews, with an interpreter having to contend with Gerry's accent and Gerry having to contend with a translator's Portuguese accent? I've always believed the language barrier was a reason for misunderstandings which would simply not have happened if it hadn't existed.
The interpreter is British, speaks quite well Portuguese and also French. I asked her if she had difficulty to understand Mrs Cameron, and she said she had none at all (before any session she has a chat with the witness outside of the court room, precisely to get accustomed to the eventual accent).
The difficult part is to hear properly a person of whom you only see the back at a certain distance. The lawyer or the judge asks a question. The interpreter turns her head towards the witness and translates the question, her mouth being at about 40 cm of the witness' ear. Then the witness answers, looking in front towards the Judge. The interpreter turns her head to listen better, she can see the mouth's movements, then she translates for the judge, looking in front of her.
Of what I heard from the witness and then from the interpreter (in the case of Mrs Cameron, much more from the interpreter) I catch a meaning that I sometimes write in French, don't ask me how !
You have to realize idiomatic expressions can't by definition be translated literally. There too there's the spirit and the letter, a reality some seem not to be aware of.
The truth has been before your eyes. I am only presenting facts.
Rubbish it and prefer mths if you wish.
Tells us all about you 8(>((
The truth has been before your eyes. I am only presenting facts.
Rubbish it and prefer mths if you wish.
Tells us all about you 8(>((
I am surprised by the amount of angst displayed as I believe that resorting to hostility and insults only weakens one's argument.
Sadie. This is your last warning about calling people liars. I won't tolerate such abuse against established members. If you cannot conform to the rules maybe you shouldn't be here?
why are Admin so biased against posters that support the parents of a missing child ?
Maybe if those posters would start obeying the rules they wouldnt get sanctioned!?
That was one of my points that some people seem to disregard as to the potential difficulties in interpreting during the chaos of the early statements at the PJ station.
that goes for the anti's who don't support the parents of a missing child but they get away with it imo
8-)(--)
keen to keep us quiet isnt she hehehe
Carana, a witness says "their grief was multiplied a hundred times", which is obviously a figure of speech since grief can't be quantitatively measured (this isn't true for physical pain), the interpreter can't find immediately the equivalent in Portuguese but translates without losing anything essential, for instance, "was terribly increased". The style of the speaker is partly lost, but not what s/he meant. Why don't you admit that ?
That was one of my points that some people seem to disregard as to the potential difficulties in interpreting during the chaos of the early statements at the PJ station.
Carana, a witness says "their grief was multiplied a hundred times", which is obviously a figure of speech since grief can't be quantitatively measured (this isn't true for physical pain), the interpreter can't find immediately the equivalent in Portuguese but translates without losing anything essential, for instance, "was terribly increased". The style of the speaker is partly lost, but not what s/he meant. Why don't you admit that ?
I'm not a professional translator, according to Chinagirl's criteria, but thanks to translations I did (and they were published), I'm aware of the mental mechanisms implied by the translating process. Actually it says much about the way your brain works.
keen to keep us quiet isnt she hehehe
yeah i wont swear on here again i was having a bad day yesterday but i learnt my lesson
pmsl ;) jeepers ur acting like a naughty school girl
You sound just like the class monitor 8**8:/:
Henrique Machado evidence
The Judge asks whether the witness knew that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis about the case.
HM – Yes. He says that this understanding was induced by the orientation of the investigation.
The Judge observes that the process had evolved (after GA was dismissed).
HM says it's normal that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis.
The Judge remarks that it is based on Dr Amaral’s own experiences as Coordinator and not on the investigation as a whole. The investigation went on (after GA's dismissal). How could he know what was happening?
HM says he knew the McCanns were arguidos, that what was happening was public knowledge. He says he never had any contact with Gonçalo Amaral (before the interview).
The Judge tells him he can sit down.
Interesting statement by the Judge.
lol you sound like the dunce in the corner ;)
In attack mode again, I see. Do you have any other function ?
good morning jassi ?{)(**
I have many fuctions thank you 8((()*/
I'm glad to hear that and look forward to seeing them.
show me yours an i'll show ya mine @)(++(*
When are we going to have the testimony of Eduardo Dâmaso?
It has now been posted, up in the court case forum, with thanks to John and Anne
Wonderspam, Jerry Lawton has tweeted court resumes today.
Eta link
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2564.msg84383#new
Seems nobody from the McCann side bothered to turn up today except for their lawyers. Not to worry as they can read all about it here!
Maybe we should make Reports accessible to members only?
Seems nobody from the McCann side bothered to turn up today except for their lawyers. Not to worry as they can read all about it here!
Maybe we should make Reports accessible to members only?
@)(++(*
Seems nobody from the McCann side bothered to turn up today except for their lawyers. Not to worry as they can read all about it here!
Maybe we should make Reports accessible to members only?
Seems that Isabel Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, didn't bother to turn up either and Kate has also been asked to be heard as a witness.
Sorry forgot to say, Anne tells me the session over for the day with Ricardo Paiva, Luis Neves and former police officer and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores giving evidence. Should be dynamite reading! 8(0(*
Also, the President of Portuguese Bar Association, Marinho Pinto, expected to have to testify in person instead of providing a statement as the judge has ruled that he should be available for cross examination.
Most excellent ! ... can't wait to read it
Anne deserves a medal for attending every day of the hearing like this ... with special commendation to you John, for the hours you've put in on the transcripts 8@??)(
Port police organised crime unit head Luis Neves said Amaral's conclusion Madeleine was dead was accepted early on by parents
Good god... have you SEEN the tweets coming out about today's hearing!!? 8()-000(
Not entirely sure which is my favourite... maybe:
Oopsie... 8@??)( @)(++(*
Its times like this that I wish I had an understanding of Twitter 8(8-))
Could someone post a link - preferably several
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 1m
judge says book cover says it contains `exclusive revelations'..`ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising', #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 2m
Judge to Paiva: `What's new in the book that's not in the police files?' Paiva: `Nothing' #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 8m
Judge stops lawyers on both sides asking Amaral's former cop colleagues their conclusions on #McCann case because `opinions' not `facts'
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 10m
Flores says `prophetic and dogmatic vision' behind current SY #McCann probe. UK cops `only putting forward the hypothesis of abduction'
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 14m
Flores: #McCann and Tapas 7 friends should have had their phones tapped because of `inconsistencies' in their statements.
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 15m
Retired cop Francisco Moita Flores said #McCann probe was one of `most complex and well-investigated cases' he'd seen..Amaral `competent'
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 16m
Neves: Brit police suggested bringing in sniffer dogs..`not accepted lightly' due to `cost' and `no experience of it in Portugal' #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 25m
Neves: Kate driving force behind failed July 2007 search by controversial ex-Sth African cop Danie Krugel with body-finding machine #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 27m
Port police organised crime unit head Luis Neves said Amaral's conclusion Madeleine was dead was accepted early on by parents #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 30m
Paiva says everything in Amaral's book `can be found in the case files' which have been made public #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 31m
Contrary to #McCann claim Paiva says publication of Amaral's book did not hinder the `flow of information' coming in to police
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 33m
Paiva: the book `contains the professional and personal opinions of Goncalo Amaral as a police officer' #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 34m
Former Portuguese police family liaison officer Ricardo Paiva tells #McCann libel trial Amaral's book was `based on our investigation'
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 37m
Kate #McCann asks judge for permission to give evidence at libel trial
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 2h
Madeleine #McCann libel trial resumes. Parents suing ex-cop Goncalo Amaral for £1m over his book's claims they covered up her death.
Ricardo Paiva, the PJ detective who acted as a liaison officer and got quite friendly with the McCanns at the beginning gave evidence first I believe today. He is the guy who fell out of favour at the arguido interviews and whom Kate says in her book that her "f..king tosser, f..king tosser" whisper was aimed at.
They are being mudered in this trial,
I wonder what tomorrows headlines will be?
This must be painful to watch for the Pro McCann army
Probably won't even get a mention 8(8-))
I can't quite think what's missing in here... oh yes, a single McCann supporter. Wonder why?
They are eating their words as we speak.
Let me have a wild guess what Kate may be saying after hearing what he's been saying today... @)(++(* @)(++(*
Fascinating report from the court today.
I don't know whether it's been reported yet, as I have not gone through all the posts, but km apparently wants to stand as a witness at the trial.
Nice to see that some don't throw a hissy fit when their photo is taken.
Just to bring everyone up to date...
The McCann lawyer Mrs Isabel Duarte wasn't there today, and left it to her assistant, the camera shy Ricardo Alfonso.
First to testify this morning (by video-link from Funchal, Madeira) was PJ detective Ricardo Paiva. Ricardo was the one who befriended the McCanns early on in the investigation and was made their liaison officer due to his bilingual skills. He was the one whom Kate referred to as a [sic] 'f..king tosser, f..king tosser' in her book Madeleine.
He was followed by former Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida also by video-link from his barracks in Portimão. His testimony was dismissed almost immediately (he had neither read the book nor knew the AG report)
Next was Luis Neves, Gonçalo Amaral's second in command at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine. He currently holds the post of head of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB).
After lunch Manuel Catarino (Principal Writer with Correio da Manha) testified followed by former PJ officer and now criminologist Francisco Moita Flores also very talkative.
Hernani Carvalho did not appear but has been maintained by the defence and will be notified re November.
Finally as previously advised, both Kate and Gerry McCann have now requested to testify as has Gonçalo Amaral. The judge will decide once all witnesses have brought what they call "the matter of proof".
Just to bring everyone up to date...John, Luis Neves is the head of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB), a unit that is called in special cases like abduction. He never substituted GA.
The McCann lawyer Mrs Isabel Duarte wasn't there today, and left it to her assistant, the camera shy Ricardo Alfonso.
First to testify this morning (by video-link from Funchal, Madeira) was PJ detective Ricardo Paiva. Ricardo was the one who befriended the McCanns early on in the investigation and was made their liaison officer due to his bilingual skills. He was the one whom Kate referred to as a [sic] 'f..king tosser, f..king tosser' in her book Madeleine.
He was followed by former Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida also by video-link from his barracks in Portimão. His testimony was dismissed almost immediately (he had neither read the book nor knew the AG report)
Next was Luis Neves, Gonçalo Amaral's second in command who ultimately replaced him. He had much to say.
After lunch Manuel Catarino (Principal Writer with Correio da Manha) testified followed by former PJ officer and now criminologist Francisco Moita Flores also very talkative.
Hernani Carvalho did not appear but has been maintained by the defence and will be notified re November.
Finally as previously advised, both Kate and Gerry McCann have now requested to testify as has Gonçalo Amaral. The judge will decide once all witnesses have brought what they call "the matter of proof".
John, Luis Neves is the head of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB), a unit that is called in special cases like abduction. He never substituted GA.
John, Luis Neves is the head of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB), a unit that is called in special cases like abduction. He never substituted GA.
Icabodcrane, I was amazed about the lack of combativeness of the accusation.
Sometimes, looking at this trial and especially at the judge, I think of the epilogue of La Fontaine's "Le Chat, la Belette, et le petit Lapin"...
http://www.musee-jean-de-la-fontaine.fr/jean-de-la-fontaine-fable-uk-58.html (http://www.musee-jean-de-la-fontaine.fr/jean-de-la-fontaine-fable-uk-58.html)
It says something when Anne turns up to court more often than Isabelle Duarte does, doesn't it?
Thank you Anne! You really are a blessing!
Cariad x
It says something when Anne turns up to court more often than Isabelle Duarte does, doesn't it?
Thank you Anne! You really are a blessing!
Cariad x
It says something when Anne turns up to court more often than Isabelle Duarte does, doesn't it?
Thank you Anne! You really are a blessing!
Cariad x
Probably won't even get a mention 8(8-))
John, Luis Neves is the head of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB), a unit that is called in special cases like abduction. He never substituted GA.
Icabodcrane, I was amazed about the lack of combativeness of the accusation.
Sometimes, looking at this trial and especially at the judge, I think of the epilogue of La Fontaine's "Le Chat, la Belette, et le petit Lapin"...
http://www.musee-jean-de-la-fontaine.fr/jean-de-la-fontaine-fable-uk-58.html (http://www.musee-jean-de-la-fontaine.fr/jean-de-la-fontaine-fable-uk-58.html)
Someone's been busy.(http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/10/8/263611/default/v1/express-1-329x437.png)
(http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/10/8/263614/default/v1/mirror-1-329x437.png)
(http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/10/8/263608/default/v2/star-1-329x437.png)
Wonder if shes proud of rejecting applications to make trial in camera, her children will be getting comments in school and she and her husband are the proud medal bearers for that
Just to bring everyone up to date...
The McCann lawyer Mrs Isabel Duarte wasn't there today, and left it to her assistant, the camera shy Ricardo Alfonso.
First to testify this morning (by video-link from Funchal, Madeira) was PJ detective Ricardo Paiva. Ricardo was the one who befriended the McCanns early on in the investigation and was made their liaison officer due to his bilingual skills. He was the one whom Kate referred to as a [sic] 'f..king tosser, f..king tosser' in her book Madeleine.
He was followed by former Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida also by video-link from his barracks in Portimão. His testimony was dismissed almost immediately (he had neither read the book nor knew the AG report)
Next was Luis Neves, Gonçalo Amaral's second in command at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine. He had much to say.
After lunch Manuel Catarino (Principal Writer with Correio da Manha) testified followed by former PJ officer and now criminologist Francisco Moita Flores also very talkative.
Hernani Carvalho did not appear but has been maintained by the defence and will be notified re November.
Finally as previously advised, both Kate and Gerry McCann have now requested to testify as has Gonçalo Amaral. The judge will decide once all witnesses have brought what they call "the matter of proof".
In your biography of Paiva you forgot to mention the fact that he was under a discplinary cloud for exposing himself to a woman on the internet early last year.
I wonder did the PJ deal with that like the Catholic Church dealt with its deviants and simply shuffled him off to Madeira (where he apparently is now judging by his need to he heard by video link) where he could carry on as if nothing had happened? Its interesting that the story which Correio da Manha ran about Paiva exposing his private parts on FB was written by none other than Eduardo Damaso (Isn't he another of Amaral's friends and potential witnesses?).
You omitted completely a biography of Almeida whose criminal conviction for torture of people involved in crimes that the PJ were investigating seems to be perfectly acceptable in Portugal judging by the fact that he remains a cop after such crimes. Surely readers are entitled to just as much of a biography of him as anyone else?
I have just read the bits and bobs from today's events and cannot get over the fact that Oliveira had it all his own way today. Duarte has taken the cowards way out and left it to her sidekick to make a token appearance. One of the McCanns should have been there today, it is their case, they raised the action. What Duarte did today would be considered disrespectful in a British court.
Regarding Ricardo Paiva, the police believe that his FB page had been hacked which it probably was. So don't start accusing him now. All these accusations against policemen involved in the Maddie case just seems such a coincidence and a bit fishy.
As for Tavares de Almeida he had already been acquitted in the torture case and then all of sudden another court overturned it. It wasn't for torture but for not acting against the torture.
I have just read the bits and bobs from today's events and cannot get over the fact that Oliveira had it all his own way today. Duarte has taken the cowards way out and left it to her sidekick to make a token appearance. One of the McCanns should have been there today, it is their case, they raised the action. What Duarte did today would be considered disrespectful in a British court.
Perhaps Duarte had a prior engagement like Amaral's lawyer the other day, but unlike him did not decide to play the game of delaying the trial?
Your presumption that she was the coward and he wasn't is quite funny really.
And why should the McCanns have been there? Is there some legal requirement? Why should they waste time travelling for about five hours of testimony which they have heard before. Not one of those witnesses today gave anything new at all, because there is nothing new they can say. Paiva changed his mind and this time (unlike at the injunction hearing) decided that the book did have an effect. I have no doubt the judge will refer back to his previous testimony and note that odd change in his stance. Thats all that was new today.
Almeida was a complete waste of time, clearly (if the claims of [ censored word] about Duarte's use of certain witnesses is to be believed) a definite sign of incompetence on the part of Amaral's lawyers.
The testimony about Krugel is old hat and shows absolutely no regard for a proper understanding on the part of the PJ officers as to what the motives for his being accepted by the McCanns were.
Ricardo Paiva never said that the book had an effect on the investigation, the person who wrote that in the tweet in 2010 made a mistake.
Sorry, that just is not possible.
In the defence of Anne Guedes testimony, John was very clear that it is not allowed to lie about what was said in court. Therefore if that report of the court case then was wrong it means that John was wrong to use that as a defence regarding the 100% accuracy of Anne Guedes edited reports.
But in the meantime could you prove your claim that the tweet was inaccurate? Some evidence to support your claim. A court transcript perhaps or judgement in which reference is made to Paiva's testimony? I have never seen that demonstrated anywhere.
Daily Express:
Madeleine: dramatic new court claims
Kate McCann is to make a dramatic bid to nail the smears which have hampered the search for her daughter Madeleine.
Brave Kate wants to defend herself in open court to silence her tormentor detective Goncalo Amaral over false claims she was involved in a cover-up, it was revealed yesterday.
The former GP is expected to use new evidence unearthed by Scotland Yard to kill off Portuguese police smears for once and for all. British officers are set to reveal 'fresh, substantative material' during a Crimewatch special on the case to be aired on Monday.
It comes as detectives revealed they are closer...
8@??)(
Mischief making by the Express I think.
we will see shall we 8(0(* looks like kate could be the one with a few aces up her sleeve tick tock
wheres amarals ?
Beats me Benita, but you can't be using a Crimewatch episode in a courtroom. Police would have to be witnesses, or submit evidence themselves. It's not a movie.
I still think the Express reporters are making it up.
Now you have made that claim about hacking, please support it. And I won't be taking the word of Damaso (who is a friend of Amaral and Paiva) as evidence.
When you talk about all these accusations about these "officers" as being fishy are you actually not aware that many were made long before the disappearance of Madeleine, particularly those against Amaral himself which were later proved in court? Are you suggesting the McCanns pre-arranged them all?
Almeida is a criminal. He was convicted for torture. He was never even suspended (as far as I am aware) from his work in the PJ. The PJ has criminals who have clearly defiled the name of "officer of the law" working for them.
Mischief making by the Express I think.
Did he ever have one Benita?
you would think that ..like I said wait an see eh 8(0(*
The senior journalist working for the Express, who has been involved with this case for years, is Jim 'mad dog' Murray'
He is the British journalist who has , uniquely, ( and sympathetically ) interviewed Amaral ( and his wife )
This, together with the litigeous history the McCanns have with paper, lends me to believe the Express is playing the long-game
we will see shall we 8(0(* looks like kate could be the one with a few aces up her sleeve tick tock
wheres amarals ?
Nice to see you back gilet.
Now I know things are not going well for the McCanns 8)-)))
I think so Icabod. Murray knows exactly what the state of play is with UK police. It was he who printed police have found part of the needle in the haystack on Sunday. Bit different to the 'imminent arrests' the Mirror printed 8-)(--)
Clutching at rather pathetic straws. But you have to grasp anything as Amaral is clearly floundering.
Odd you should think that. I was only thinking this afternoon that the frantic nature of much of the anti McCann activity recently is a sure sign that the Amaral case is rather badly failing.
When Paiva has to change his story from one court to another to support Amaral its a pretty poor show.
Does he really think that the Judge will not realise that he either perjured himself back in 2010 when he was reported not just by a lone tweeter but by others as well (eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html ) saying that the Police believed from very early on that the McCanns were guilty or that he perjured himself today. He cannot believe both things as they contradict.
The senior journalist working for the Express, who has been involved with this case for years, is Jim 'mad dog' Murray'
He is the British journalist who has , uniquely, ( and sympathetically ) interviewed Amaral ( and his wife )
This, together with the litigeous history the McCanns have with paper, lends me to believe the Express is playing the long-game
I really cannot see any logical explanation for you claiming this trial is going badly for Amaral
I try to be objective ... and if I thought the hearing was going the McCanns' way, then I would certainly say so
On all evidence so far, though, that is simply not the case
You look a bit silly making that claim, I have to say
That doesn't explain why the Mirror is running a front page on this though does it? No, it doesn't.
As I thought, you are clutching at straws.
Really? When the star of the injunction hearing, Almeida, is dismissed as not being relevant?
When the judge belittles Paiva by pointing out that his testimony is a load of nonsense by pointing out that the claims on the book cover indicate he is not telling the truth about its contents?
When having desperately taken a "time out" on hearing that Gerry McCann wishes to testify, Amaral suddenly adds his name to the list of potential witnesses?
I was speaking of the Express ( and their history with the McCanns ) together with senior journalist James Murray's personal interest in the case
What on earth has that got to do with 'the Mirror' ?
Interesting observation.ID's absence wasn't justified. She might have had another trial.
hmm ... OK then ... an absent Duarte slaughtered the defence witnesses ... how clever of her
It is going badly for the McCanns ... that is obvious to anyone with a modicum of impartiality
That might change ( and if it does I will certainly acknowledge it ) ... but for now, it's not looking good
What doesn't work for me is the image of Maddie's bed. One small corner turned down. Is that how her bed was found, after she was gone?
I was speaking of the Express ( and their history with the McCanns ) together with senior journalist James Murray's personal interest in the case
What on earth has that got to do with 'the Mirror' ?
PMSL!!!! Poor gilets been wielded out with her his pathetic nonsense, oh well, lol nite nite dears roflmao
Awwww but bless ur cotton likkle socks, cooee and toodles and just accept the mccanns have shot themselves in their pathetic littlefeet and will LOSE as predicted YEARS AGO, tara chuck!!!!
@)(++(*
One thing is clear.
If the Portuguese Court does not allow the people who are bringing this claim against Amaral to testify then it will be a very sad reflection on the notion of justice as applied by the Portuguese.
ID's absence wasn't justified. She might have had another trial.
Absolutely everything because you were speaking of the Express history as a reason for their current posting. But that history does not explain that other papers have exactly the same standpoint as the Express.
it completely knocks your reason for it being an Express vendetta (in waiting) on the head.
Why should it? If the complainants and their lead lawyer cannot even be bothered to attend a one day hearing where several police officers who were directly involved in the case then I fear they won't be taken seriously and have damaged their case irretrievably.
Why should it? If the complainants and their lead lawyer cannot even be bothered to attend a one day hearing where several police officers who were directly involved in the case were giving evidence then I fear they won't be taken seriously and have damaged their case irretrievably.
There is the possibility that the judge will decide against the testimony of the two McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral if she believes that she has enough evidence already to make her decision. I don't think that the judge wants to waste her time on useless theatrics. JMOActually that's quite possible. You'll have noted that sometimes she says that the question has already been answered.
I think it was shona
... doesn't look like a 'slept in' bed at all does it ?
I think it was shonaNor as a bed where a mother and her 3 children had been sitting telling stories.
... doesn't look like a 'slept in' bed at all does it ?
Sadly, no. It looks staged. I still think that Maddie was taken, possibly for ransom, but I struggle with Gerry, when he sits with folk and says "f..k off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" in front of tiny kids. If he said that when my children were there, I'd have gone frantic. So why all the silly giggling? Why the acceptance?
He left when Paiva appeared, I don't know if Paiva could see the whole court room, but I guess Amaral found Paiva would feel more at ease without him there.
Amaral has been there every day ... has he not ?
I really cannot see any logical explanation for you claiming this trial is going badly for Amaral
I try to be objective ... and if I thought the hearing was going the McCanns' way, then I would certainly say so
On all evidence so far, though, that is simply not the case
You look a bit silly making that claim, I have to say
Nor as a bed where a mother and her 3 children had been sitting telling stories.
It didn't looked slept in but it could have been slept on though the folded corner..
Can you explain why team Amaral have nothing to prove?
It is Amaral who is being tried. Not the McCanns.
Can you explain why team Amaral have nothing to prove?
It is Amaral who is being tried. Not the McCanns.
Other way round in the United Kingdom.
Amaral would have to prove what he said was the truth.
Odd you should think that. I was only thinking this afternoon that the frantic nature of much of the anti McCann activity recently is a sure sign that the Amaral case is rather badly failing.
When Paiva has to change his story from one court to another to support Amaral its a pretty poor show.
Does he really think that the Judge will not realise that he either perjured himself back in 2010 when he was reported not just by a lone tweeter but by others as well (eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html ) saying that the Police believed from very early on that the McCanns were guilty or that he perjured himself today. He cannot believe both things as they contradict.
Daily Express:
Madeleine: dramatic new court claims
Kate McCann is to make a dramatic bid to nail the smears which have hampered the search for her daughter Madeleine.
Brave Kate wants to defend herself in open court to silence her tormentor detective Goncalo Amaral over false claims she was involved in a cover-up, it was revealed yesterday.
The former GP is expected to use new evidence unearthed by Scotland Yard to kill off Portuguese police smears for once and for all. British officers are set to reveal 'fresh, substantative material' during a Crimewatch special on the case to be aired on Monday.
It comes as detectives revealed they are closer...
8@??)(
Clutching at rather pathetic straws. But you have to grasp anything as Amaral is clearly floundering.
Portuguese libel law demands that those who bring a libel action have to prove that they have been libeled ( and suffered damage as a consequence )
Angelo is quite right ... the 'heavy-lifting' is Duarte's to do
.... so where was she today ?
Posters have criticised the testimony of witnesses for the McCanns...was the report right yesterday theat Tavares de Almeida...not sure of the spelling...appearing for amaral....sat down, muttered "what am I doing here", admitted he had only read the last two pages of the book and was instantly dismissed by the judge. Is that the worst witness so far by a mile?
There is the possibility that the judge will decide against the testimony of the two McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral if she believes that she has enough evidence already to make her decision. I don't think that the judge wants to waste her time on useless theatrics. JMO
Excellent point Montclair. Those headlines depicted earlier reek of dire desperation. Can anyone answer the question as to how Kate McCann can clear her name in a Portuguese Court when their police haven't been able to?She cant, its just hot air and nonsense as per usual.....
She cant, its just hot air and nonsense as per usual.....
I came across the following comments which were made during Amaral's successful appeal against the book injunction.
From serving PJ Inspector Vitor Manuel Tavares de Almeida certain inquiry work
and official statements were confirmed; he had read the book of the first
Respondent stating that its conclusions were the same as his, taking into account
the history of the investigation, which [investigation] was far from complete;
– Serving PJ Inspector Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva had been involved in the
inquiry from beginning to end; he had been a link with the family due to his
fluency in English; he had read the book stating that what is in the book is in the
inquiry; he noted that they continue to receive information for the case file;
– Serving head of the national anti-terrorism unit, Luis Antonio Trinidade Nunes
Neves, had been asked by the head of the national directorate of the PJ to support
their efforts; up until the parents were made arguidos he had been in the Algarve
on a regular basis; he had participated in meetings with English colleagues; he
had read a few passages of the book, finding them to be no different from those in
the case file;
– Francisco Moita Flores, former murder and armed robbery Inspector of the PJ,
noted commentator on crime, and friend of the first Respondent had read the case
file, facilitated by journalists, as well as the book written by Goncalo Amaral;
www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
Can anyone spot the change in story compared to yesterdays hearing?
Closer to nothing at all.
I admit the papers can exaggerate BECAUSE!
v
v
v
Kate's name is already clear. only those who already have a conviction need to go to court, a criminal court, to clear their name.
Kate does not have a convition!!
That is plainly rubbish.
I admit the papers can exaggerate BECAUSE!
v
v
v
Kate's name is already clear. only those who already have a conviction need to go to court, a criminal court, to clear their name.
Kate does not have a convition!!
Tavares de Almeida said that he had read the last two pages of the book which contain the conclusions of the investigation and which are the conclusions of the book.
8-)(--) nope it not @)(++(*
He wouldn't need to read the book to know the conclusions - he was part of them. It's the content of the book which is being questioned - and which he now says he hasn't read.
Don't you find the fact that Tavares de Almeida has apparently committed perjury - either at the Appeal hearing or this trial to be even remotely disturbing Montclair?
He wouldn't need to read the book to know the conclusions - he was part of them. It's the content of the book which is being questioned - and which he now says he hasn't read.You'd better not jump to conclusions before having evidence. Tavares de Almeida had no interest not to say the truth (he read the last pages). The accusation called two witnesses who were dismissed rapidly because none of them had read the book nor watched the documentary (Melchior Gomes and Alipio Ribeiro). For a reading, quite a time consuming activity, some people prefer Eça de Queiroz to Gonçalo Amaral (so do I).
Don't you find the fact that Tavares de Almeida has apparently committed perjury - either at the Appeal hearing or this trial to be even remotely disturbing Montclair?
You'd better not jump to conclusions before having evidence. Tavares de Almeida had no interest not to say the truth (he read the last pages). The accusation called two witnesses who were dismissed rapidly because none of them had read the book nor watched the documentary (Melchior Gomes and Alipio Ribeiro). For a reading, quite a time consuming activity, some people prefer Eça de Queiroz to Gonçalo Amaral (so do I).
Had TdA said he had read the AG report, he would have been interrogated.
All the providência cautelar files are on top of the Judge's desk (very high piles).
Funny what you find when looking for old news.
11:00 jondipaolo:
Mr Santos: The contract between the documentary maker, VC Films, and Mr Amaral was signed in March 2008.
jondipaolo:
Mr Menezes said that a claim made by the McCanns on the first day after Madeleine's disappearance was not true.
Tuesday January 12, 2010
jondipaolo:
The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
Tuesday January 12, 2010
January 12, 2010
4:09 jondipaolo...jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
8th October 2013
Jerry Lawton@JerryLawton
Judge to Paiva: `What's new in the book that's not in the police files?' Paiva: `Nothing' #McCann
jondipaolo:
Flores is an acquaintance of amaral's and wrote the preface to the sequel to his book about madeleine.
Wednesday January 13, 2010
Jon di Paolo got it wrong when he wrote that Paiva stated that Gonçalo Amaral's book prevented other theses from being investigated. Paiva said the contrary, that it did not prevent.
Were you there, to hear what was said? Seems, I'm not the only one posting it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html
Posters have criticised the testimony of witnesses for the McCanns...was the report right yesterday theat Tavares de Almeida...not sure of the spelling...appearing for amaral....sat down, muttered "what am I doing here", admitted he had only read the last two pages of the book and was instantly dismissed by the judge. Is that the worst witness so far by a mile?
Were you there, to hear what was said? Seems, I'm not the only one posting it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html
Anne advises that three witnesses gave evidence today. Two witnesses were supposed to testify this morning but Paulo Sargento got married and might well be on his honeymoon in the Caribbean. Mario Sena Lopes, the editor of G&P eventually testified.
In the afternoon three witnesses were supposed to testify but one was dismissed and two appeared. Antonio dos Santos, director of an association which counters publishing fraud and Luis Froes, manager of Valentim de Carvalhos Filmes, who couldn't recall most of what he was asked. The judge finally asked him to do some research and come back on the 27th November to answer the same questions.
Quite a day!
Dra Duarte asked for being informed before the 27th about the Judge's decision concerning her clients taking the stand not as witnesses but as plaintiffs, in order not to have her clients flying for peanuts, legitimately but disrespectfully of the fact that Mr McCann went twice to Lx knowing perfectly he couldn't be heard.
My feeling is that this kind of trial should occur in a continuity, for the sake of the protagonists' sharp mindedness and the dynamism of the sessions.
Is the 27th turning to be the day of all revelations ? It should be prepared to have an increase of hours, though GA's lawyer told me his allegations wouldn't be long.
Jerry Lawton, who is a nice and handsome guy, told me that 1) he's not the Jamie Oliver of the tabloids' dressing for his articles (my words, not his) and 2) he never reads his articles. But he's convinced, or wants to be, that if something he wrote was twisted he would be informed somehow, Twitter or sms.
He believes that the content is all and the form not much. What is literature for ?
Anne advises that three witnesses gave evidence today. Two witnesses were supposed to testify this morning but Paulo Sargento got married and might well be on his honeymoon in the Caribbean. Mario Sena Lopes, the editor of G&P eventually testified.
In the afternoon three witnesses were supposed to testify but one was dismissed and two appeared. Antonio dos Santos, director of an association which counters publishing fraud and Luis Froes, manager of Valentim de Carvalhos Filmes, who couldn't recall most of what he was asked. The judge finally asked him to do some research and come back on the 27th November to answer the same questions.
Quite a day!
I'm really sorry Anne but I don't understand this post at all.
Good grief, is that how one attends court these days?
Not quite Old Bailey style is it Neeley? @)(++(*Robes but no wigs. they dress in the court room, no solemnity. But everybody stands up when the Judge enters.
Maybe Anne will tell us if they wear formal gowns or wigs in Court?
A former Portuguese police chief blamed Madeleine McCann's parents for the three-year-old girl's disappearance to ensure detectives carried on looking for her, a former colleague claimed today.
Antonio Paulo dos Santos told a Lisbon court he believed his friend Goncalo Amaral penned a book pointing the finger at the couple because he was against the shelving of the original investigation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487987/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-suspects-Portuguese-detectives-didnt-abandon-case.html#ixzz2joeDF4LX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Another rather strange post Anne.
How do you know that the old bailey lawyers have four hour lunch breaks!
OMG, What else I wouldn't hear in this case
So now Amaral made the McCanns suspects to make them a favour ?????
I take it You are au faire with court proceedings then?
My pleasure!
I take it You are au faire with court proceedings then?
Fair to say you don't have a clue then Lyall?
Don't worry neither do I!
really don't see the point in the photo's tbh ...its not telling us anything is it .... 8-)(--)
Oh do get over yourself Beni. It not as if the great British Press have any today.
Oh do get over yourself Beni. It not as if the great British Press have any today.
Chill shona. No one gives a whatsit what you think. So all is cool.
I know that this isn't my call.....but if some sort of "Everyman" read on here, with all sympathy for a lost child, they might soon have growing doubts about a couple who grab every opportunity to deny culpablity, while making sure that they have sleek hair, immaculate make-up, and always doing that unconvincing hand-holding crap. I see a lot of denial, but none of the loss and despair that Kerry Needham displays. I just can't get my head round them.
Well I enjoy shona's input, and I'm sure I'm not the only member/guest who does
She, unlike some, is not over-invested in this case and has no personal axe to grind
shona's opinions are as near as we get to 'neutral observer' and that is rare and valuable
Goodness me. I have never ever disrespected you icabodcrane but I think you
are way off target here.
If shona has no experience of this case she should refrain from commenting. IMO.
I know that this isn't my call.....but if some sort of "Everyman" read on here, with all sympathy for a lost child, they might soon have growing doubts about a couple who grab every opportunity to deny culpablity, while making sure that they have sleek hair, immaculate make-up, and always doing that unconvincing hand-holding crap. I see a lot of denial, but none of the loss and despair that Kerry Needham displays. I just can't get my head round them.
Goodness me. I have never ever disrespected you icabodcrane but I think you
are way off target here.
If shona has no experience of this case she should refrain from commenting. IMO.
So if the McCanns appeared looking like a couple of unkempt slobs and instead of holding hands they glared at one-another - you would find them more convincing? Intriguing.
The true criminal here IS the abductor which is all the McCanns are saying - and which Kerry Needham recognises. After all her own son was abducted only because he was alone and unsupervised. Human error can strike at any time - most times the consequences are negligible, but on very rare occasions they are tragic beyond words to all concerned.
Actually, I find very little difference between the McCanns and the Philpotts. Stupid, selfish parents, enjoying themselves.
IMo There is no comparison. One was human error the other was an evil plan which went wrong.
I would normally agree.
But Madeleine begged her mum not to leave her crying again.
But still they left her. She was too young to be in charge of Sean and Amelie.
I would normally agree.
But Madeleine begged her mum not to leave her crying again. But still they left her. She was too young to be in charge of Sean and Amelie.
What a load of rubbish. I'm very disappointed with your post. I had you down as an honest
poster. Oh well.
No she didn't. And she was not left in charge. All three children were left fast asleep and checked regularly.
If Madeline or Sean had cried for any length of time the night before then Rachel Oldfield would have heard them as she was in the next apartment and did not go out that night.
How do you know this, that Madeleine begged?
I thought the report is that Madeleine asked:
'Where were you last night when Sean and I cried?'
What a load of rubbish. I'm very disappointed with your post. I had you down as an honest
poster. Oh well.
If she had the TV on or music playing etc.?
If Mrs Fenn could hear a child crying from the floor above, then I'm pretty sure Rachael would have heard prolonged crying from next door.
More than a report. The claim was just made again on Crimewatch.
If Mrs Fenn could hear a child crying from the floor above, then I'm pretty sure Rachael would have heard prolonged crying from next door.
so lyall shot herself in the foot ...priceless @)(++(*
You think? 8)-)))
So if it was considered not to be that dramatic then, why was it mentioned to the police?
Did it claim Madeleine BEGGED her mother not to leave her again?
Is that really something to play semantics with Benice ?Icabod, you are wrong.
A little girl, according to her parents, said that she had been crying the night before ( having woken up alone and no-one came )
... and her parents' response ? ... to go out again and leave her alone once more, that very night
I don't make a big deal of the 'negligence' thing ( this case is bigger than that ) but the defence of that cavalier, and, frankly, rather callous behaviour, astounds me
Is that really something to play semantics with Benice ?
A little girl, according to her parents, said that she had been crying the night before ( having woken up alone and no-one came )
... and her parents' response ? ... to go out again and leave her alone once more, that very night
I don't make a big deal of the 'negligence' thing ( this case is bigger than that ) but the defence of that cavalier, and, frankly, rather callous behaviour, astounds me
Icabod, you are wrong.
Words can make a big difference as you well know. Propaganda creation. Myths.
BEGGED stirs the heart, pulls at the heart strings and makes the Mccanns look really bad. And that word was used to create nastiness for the Mccanns. Let's be clear, they were NOT begged. Just asked where they were. Nothing more
Front up , what do you really think happened to Madeleine?
I'm sick of your condescending posts.
Lets have your evidence that the McCanns are guilty of anything.
So back off.
You and I have no idea.
Leave these parents alone.
"Back off" ?I agree with Neeley. Back off and leave the parents alone. You DONT KNOW anything, but you think you do.
... when Admin tell me to, maybe ... but you ?
I take it you have faith in admin then ?
Oh dear.
I would normally agree.
But Madeleine begged her mum not to leave her crying again.
But still they left her. She was too young to be in charge of Sean and Amelie.
Begged her not to leave her ??????
Why would you make up stories ? Madeleine asked where she was when she was crying .then carried on
Because the whole anti McCann movement is based on made up stories
Made up stories?
Sounds like the McCanns account of May 2007.
Fairy tale abduction.
Dra Duarte asked for being informed before the 27th about the Judge's decision concerning her clients taking the stand not as witnesses but as plaintiffs, in order not to have her clients flying for peanuts, legitimately but disrespectfully of the fact that Mr McCann went twice to Lx knowing perfectly he couldn't be heard.
My feeling is that this kind of trial should occur in a continuity, for the sake of the protagonists' sharp mindedness and the dynamism of the sessions.
Is the 27th turning to be the day of all revelations ? It should be prepared to have an increase of hours, though GA's lawyer told me his allegations wouldn't be long.
Jerry Lawton, who is a nice and handsome guy, told me that 1) he's not the Jamie Oliver of the tabloids' dressing for his articles (my words, not his) and 2) he never reads his articles. But he's convinced, or wants to be, that if something he wrote was twisted he would be informed somehow, Twitter or sms.
He believes that the content is all and the form not much. What is literature for ?
Because the whole anti McCann movement is based on made up stories
Such a false, wild sweeping exagerrative and disingenuous statement.....
@)(++(*
It's the way he tells them. ?{)(**
Such a false, wild sweeping exagerrative and disingenuous statement.....
@)(++(*
Its my opinion based on reading threads and discussing the case here......have alook at the facebook page Cariad guided me too if you want to see some real blatant lies. hi di whatever had to stop posting on this forum because she could not defend the lies in her videos
You cant cherry pick and backtrack now after saying what you said originally.....in post 692
Not at all I think post 692 is a fair statement
You cant cherry pick and backtrack now after saying what you said originally.....in post 692
have another look at post 692 and tell me if you think "begged her not to leave them" is an accurate statement
It certainly is not......then again I suppose you could hide behind your meaning of.....movement.....to water down your extreme post....
If you cant then you shall have to accept that what you are saying is that everyone who is sceptical of the abduction story bases that opinion on nothing else but "made up stories".......and you are in no position to actually do that in the first place.......but think what you like if it pleases you.....
Its my opinion based on reading threads and discussing the case here......have alook at the facebook page Cariad guided me too if you want to see some real blatant lies. hi di whatever had to stop posting on this forum because she could not defend the lies in her videos
That doesn't mean that all who doubt the Mccanns are working from the position of blatant lies. I can't abide the myths either. I think that they play in to the hands of the 'pro's' and do cause confusion for everybody.
You consider me an 'anti' but I told you that I'm not a member of that site and I disagree with a lot that's posted there.
How did the trial against Goncalo Amaral go,it was yesterday wasn't it.
I think he already has been fed to the pigs. Only the bones left to chew over. So many glaring mistakes and failures in the investigation that make you wonder what he was doing when he wasn't feeding his face and leaking stuff.
And all such simple things to investigate.
You'd better become an advisor to police the world over then, Eleanor.
They all struggle with investigations that have this much media involvement.
Are you serious ?100% agree.. The more i read and learn, it becomes more clear how unbelievably selfish these parents are. Seriously breaks my heart 8(8-))
A little girl ... a pre-school infant, 'asks' mummy and daddy why they didn't come when she woke up and was crying
No matter that the reason they didn't come was because they weren't THERE ... because they were out for the evening with their mates
All that matters to you is that the infant didn't 'BEG' ?
Do you ever ... for a moment ... consider that what happened to that little girl is more important than the rabid defense of her parents ?
Hi Eleanor, what other "first thing" actions would you have taken ?
Visiting the crime scene and meeting The McCanns might have been quite a good idea. Instead of going home and deciding The McCanns done it, on Day One.
Has he been proven wrong?
I would say so. No one with any authority is looking at The McCanns anymore. Not even The PJ.
Has he been proven wrong?
Well the Portuguese Justice system said neither investigation found evidence to charge anyone. And the same system is now reinvestigating abduction as a cause,
That's a perfectly valid point. Are we just talking about Goncalo Amaral here or the PJ in general ?
Also one last thing, have you read the official released files ?
Isn't Tavares Almeida an Arguido? Or has he already been convicted? So many of these hideous people are Arguidos that I have rather lost track.
I am talking about Amaral, The Coordinator, who then went on to write a Libellous book about two people that he had never met.
Of course I have read The Files. What else would I have been doing for the last six and a half years. This is why I know that so much of what is posted by sceptics is bollox or misleading. And why I know that Amaral's book is full of lies.
I use logic you see. That is how I know that The McCanns cannot have done that which they have been accused of. I would not be supporting them otherwise.
I post elsewhere as Sabot, and have done so since The Mirror Forum days. But everyone knows that.
Thanks Eleanor, I find it rather strange that someone with your in-depth knowledge of the case, having read the files for six years, and being a fervent supporter of Kate, Gerry & Madeleine never raised the point in the past that there is no reference in the files to the night crèche records or sacked employees, seeing as you stated that would have been the first thing you would have done in an investigation !
No you don't know - you believe.
I am talking about Amaral, The Coordinator, who then went on to write a Libellous book about two people that he had never met.
Of course I have read The Files. What else would I have been doing for the last six and a half years. This is why I know that so much of what is posted by sceptics is bollox or misleading. And why I know that Amaral's book is full of lies.
I use logic you see. That is how I know that The McCanns cannot have done that which they have been accused of. I would not be supporting them otherwise.
I post elsewhere as Sabot, and have done so since The Mirror Forum days. But everyone knows that.
I do know. It's called Logistics. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what that means.
First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns. He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.
First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns. He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.
Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment. My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.
Behind a glass panel where The McCanns couldn't see him. Hardly interaction.
He was the Coordinator, it wasn't his job to interact. He had a whole bunch of detectives under him to do that. It is amazing how people who claim to be so well informed about this case still still get the basics wrong and in particular how the detective hierarchy works in Portugal.
Which one would you like me to be? Silly Pillock. And I thought that this sort of accusation was against Forum Rules.
But I won't bother to report you. You are doing a fine job of discrediting yourself. Keep up the good work.
I wasn't making an accusation, merely indicating that only they know if they were involved.
Your logic could only work if you were in possession of all the facts - this you cannot be sure of and therefore the logic is flawed.
Exactly my point. None of us have all the facts and consequently anything we belief is mere belief- no one 'knows' what happened.
Anyone claiming this is either stupid or lying.
Exactly my point. None of us have all the facts and consequently anything we belief is mere belief- no one 'knows' what happened.
Anyone claiming this is either stupid or lying.
But he did not meet them.
Meet? He was there overseeing his detectives. A Coordinator is responsible for several cases so his duties were varied. The detectives do the footwork and the interviewing, it was not Dr Amaral's job.
So you agree that he did not meet them?
But he did not meet them.
[/quote
Why is this so important for you?
First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns. He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.
Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment. My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.
First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns. He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.
Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment. My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.
Which question?
I think the point that John is making is that there was no need for Amaral to 'meet' the McCanns ... it was't expected of him ( indeed, it would have been unusual for an officer of his rank to have been directly involved with victims/suspects )
John was a policeman, and knows what he is talking about
"Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not"
The book is based on the conclusion of the files as was,
The judge has already said
MC – Then there are no revelations!
So with no difference between the book & the files, the original files would have to be deemed libellous aswell.
ORLY.
John said that Amaral had "Met" The McCanns, which he obviously hadn't. But still felt justified in writing a book about people he had never even spoken to.
And Amaral was only a Chief Inspector. So are you saying that Amaral never personally questioned anyone? I seem to remember he questioned Robert Murat, and threatened to "Get" him somehow or another.
So you agree that he did not meet them?
If he had time to sit watching them - why didn't he spend that same time talking to them? I've never seen any claim from Amaral that he ever watched them. Where has this come from?
He had a whole book to make it clear that he had never met or spoken to them - but not once does he even hint at that - in fact by the use of the word - 'we' - he positively avoids it IMO. Would the book have had the same impact if the reader knew that actually nothing in it was an account of his own first hand experience of the McCanns - because the truth was he'd never met them. I don't think so.
Hi Benice, wasn't the book publicised as based on the criminal investigation, not on his first hand dealings with Kate & Gerry.
No. It was based on his honour, according to him.
Hi Benice, wasn't the book publicised as based on the criminal investigation, not on his first hand dealings with Kate & Gerry.
IMO If that was true he would not have made personal remarks/comments about the McCanns intended to turn the reader against them.
IMO the parts of his book which actually refer to the case itself are a catalogue of exaggerations, spiteful innuendo, half truths, lies by omission and downright lies - and in places bears little or no resemblance to the files.
IMO He should write a book on gardening - as planting seeds appears to come naturally to him.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does or did. He's a crook.
Amaral is a Convicted Crook. And there is absolutely no proof of The McCann's culpability. But there is proof that Amaral is a Convicted Crook.
Amaral is a Convicted Crook. And there is absolutely no proof of The McCann's culpability. But there is proof that Amaral is a Convicted Crook.
In your opinion..........we all know your dripping venomous hatred for the guy.........its frankly soooooo boring and even if he was satan...thatchanges NOTHING at all as to the mccanns culpability, or involvement..... not one single iota....thats where your so called logic fails every single time
THis should be so self-evident that I cannot really understand while some people bad-mouth him at every opportunity. I can only assume that it is an attempt to wind up those who do not slavishly worship the McCanns.
To make the mccanns seem whiter obviously....its a bad strategy.....
Oh perfect description for Madeleine by Kate Mccann..........cheers
And yet no-one is sueing Kate McCann for libel Red.
And yet no-one is sueing Kate McCann for libel Red.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
No not really, you should try some chamomile......helps
Libel had not been estabished when that was written, so libel could not be considered when coming to that conclusion.
This is why the current Libel case is now taking place.
Not everyone is a vexatious litigant in life.......seeking millions......
And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?
Why should they? - its not as if many take the book seriously.
And your evidence for that is.................................?
If there was no libel there would be nothing to litigate against.
I don't think the McCanns care that much about the money except that they would object to Amaral making a profit on Madeleine's back. I can understand that - I would feel the same.
If there was no libel there would be nothing to litigate against.
I don't think the McCanns care that much about the money except that they would object to Amaral making a profit on Madeleine's back. I can understand that - I would feel the same.
And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?
Whether the book is libellous!
John has a very strong point....how can a police theory be libellous? When it has never been disproved? Can police theories be libellous at all? Can any theory be?
>@@(*&)
And yet no-one is sueing Kate McCann for libel Red.
And so have the McCanns witnesses provided any proof the book is libellous?
Just as a matter of interest would signing the Official Secrets Act be relevant here? If so I wonder if there is a similar requirement in Portugal.
First off you are wrong about Amaral never having met the McCanns. He might not have shaken hands or spoken to them which was understandable given his position and the language barrier but he was there when they were questioned at Portimao.
Secondly, the issue as to whether Amaral's book is libellous or not is the subject of a trial at the moment. My own view is that this question cannot be determined until it is established what happened to Madeleine.
Are you sure about that John? Kate said in her book that Gerry had met him briefly at some point. Other than that, I haven't found anything to substantiate anything more.
What do you mean by "he was there when they were questioned at Portimao." Where? When? According to whom? What in the files would substantiate that?
Amaral said so didn't he when the McCanns thought they were about to be charged. Didn't he repeat what Kate uttered..."What will the Press say...what will our parents say?"Off topic but correction needed, Angelo. You're speaking here of another inspector, Ricardo Paiva.
Off topic btw 8(0(*
Anne, I notice from the latest Court Report that the Judge may allow the plaintiffs to be heard on the 27th November but not apparently as witnesses. What exactly is this all about?This is a new disposition of the New CPC. I suppose neither the McCanns nor GA can be witnesses, being parties in the process. This means they don't have to be notified. I'm not sure they can be cross-examined. May be only by the judge ? I'll try to know.
Are they going to be allowed to make some sort of statement to the Court instead of being examined?
Yes of course, an appeal is possible. I think that the judge determines the amount of the damages. Usually the one who loses pays the damages, though sometimes, in case of a symbolical damage (1€ in France !), the costs are divided between the parties.
Beyond this here and now case, once the judge has given a decision I suppose there might be appeals. But what is important to know is can the judge award damages\costs? Or does either side then have to come before the courts to set damages? And if damages are awarded when of IF does Sr Amaral & his publishers seek recompense for the delay in returning the books - of is that water under the bridge.
News
World news
Madeleine Mccann
Disgraced Madeleine McCann detective must reveal how much money he made from book about bungled Maddie probe
20 November 2013 12:00 AM By Andy Lines
A judge ordered Goncalo Amaral to hand over receipts - Gerry and KateMcCann are suing him for £1million over his book The Truth of the Lie
Receipts: Goncalo Amaral who published a book making allegations about Maddie's disappearance
Disgraced former detective Goncalo Amaral was yesterday ordered by a judge in Lisbon to reveal how much cash he made from a book about the bungled Madeleine McCann probe.
Amaral, 56, has 10 days to hand over receipts.
The book’s publishers and the producers of a TV documentary were also instructed to reveal how much they paid him in royalties.
Gerry and Kate, both 45, are suing him for £1million over his book The Truth of the Lie, in which he claimed they covered up their girl’s death in the Algarve in 2007.
He denies defamation.
What I am hearing from Lisbon is that this case will still be going on in January at this rate. This latest move by Isabel Duarte is seen as nothing more than a delaying tactic. The judge will decide next Wednesday whether a statement by the McCanns can be heard by the court.
I am told that Anne is doing a short report for us on what really went on in Lisbon yesterday.
When the McCanns case goes tits up I hope they are able to produce receipts for all their earnings for when Amaral sue's them.
When the McCanns case goes tits up I hope they are able to produce receipts for all their earnings for when Amaral sue's them.
What exactly can Amaral sue them for? By the way, I think it's rather obvious that the McCanns have all but won this court case.
Anagrams book is based in amarals case so his book will be the files
The point is amaral took the case his way not looking at other options
What exactly can Amaral sue them for? By the way, I think it's rather obvious that the McCanns have all but won this court case.
When the McCanns case goes tits up I hope they are able to produce receipts for all their earnings for when Amaral sue's them.
Where are the plausible witness's for Amaral,have they actually turned up at court.
Anagrams book is based in amarals case so his book will be the files
The point is amaral took the case his way not looking at other options
Nice to see such an even handed moderation team. 8(0(*
And the difference is:
Dr McCann is a professional, making his living working for the NHS and in the UK medical profession - whereas Amaral is.....?
All of the money gathered by the McCanns has been paid into the fund, subject to audit my HaysMacintyre, an extremely reputable firm of chartered accountants. Whereas Amaral has, well, we can only see earrings, prties, fireworks and a Jag.
as ever, we shall have to wait and see.
Nice to see such an even handed moderation team. 8(0(*
And the difference is:
Dr McCann is a professional, making his living working for the NHS and in the UK medical profession - whereas Amaral is.....?
All of the money gathered by the McCanns has been paid into the fund, subject to audit my HaysMacintyre, an extremely reputable firm of chartered accountants. Whereas Amaral has, well, we can only see earrings, prties, fireworks and a Jag.
as ever, we shall have to wait and see.
Why would The Judge want to know how much money Goncalo Amaral has earned if she isn't considering how much to award The McCanns?
She wouldn't.
What ever happens, wait for the appeal.
You sound a little desperate, Stephen. Starting to realise things might not go the way you hoped? The truth finally sinking in?
You are forgetting something, both police forces are investigating (Abduction). they are not and I (repeat) not investigating Amaral's theories in his book. "Tick Tock"
You sound a little desperate, Stephen. Starting to realise things might not go the way you hoped? The truth finally sinking in?
More to the point, what will happen if there are not enough Sequestered Funds from Amaral to meet any award The Judge decides to make to The McCanns.
A large amount of Amaral's profit from his book had already been spent before The Court got their hands on the remainder.
My point was, Amaral's book did harm the search, the Portuguese police stopped looking for the girl.
10 out 10 for trying to twist my words though.
More to the point, what will happen if there are not enough Sequestered Funds from Amaral to meet any award The Judge decides to make to The McCanns.
A large amount of Amaral's profit from his book had already been spent before The Court got their hands on the remainder.
The fact you read into my post was what you wanted to read,is really telling, I will be more generious and give you 1 out 10 for jumping the gun.
Read and thou will see,i don't repeat myself.
The fact you read into my post was what you wanted to read,is really telling, I will be more generious and give you 1 out 10 for jumping the gun.
News
World news
Madeleine Mccann
Disgraced Madeleine McCann detective must reveal how much money he made from book about bungled Maddie probe
20 November 2013 12:00 AM By Andy Lines
A judge ordered Goncalo Amaral to hand over receipts - Gerry and KateMcCann are suing him for £1million over his book The Truth of the Lie
Receipts: Goncalo Amaral who published a book making allegations about Maddie's disappearance
Disgraced former detective Goncalo Amaral was yesterday ordered by a judge in Lisbon to reveal how much cash he made from a book about the bungled Madeleine McCann probe.
Amaral, 56, has 10 days to hand over receipts.
The book’s publishers and the producers of a TV documentary were also instructed to reveal how much they paid him in royalties.
Gerry and Kate, both 45, are suing him for £1million over his book The Truth of the Lie, in which he claimed they covered up their girl’s death in the Algarve in 2007.
He denies defamation.
And how do you know that? Duarte famously told the press - on Day 1 of the trial: "We can't find the money!"
And that colombostogey is another point......a police theory printed in a book would immediately and all on its own brainwash any reader.....and even if it did to any extent influence, the fact of the matter must be that anyone spotting a Maddie lookalike would report it...and in fact this continued to happen...its laughable.....to even suggest that the populations of many countries would be going around months and years later looking out for a missing child....but were stopped by a book! Which was on a sale in a couple countries...vis a vis a global constant year on year media campaign by the family....
Deary.....
Actually did the PJ read his book first then shelve the case....NO. They shelved the case then his book was published, so how can it have harmed the search for anyone.
The Internet is FULL of stuff about the case OFFICIAL files, why would anyone need to buy a book about a theory?
We can all make our own minds up....I am surprised the McCanns havent actually tried to sue the MET police and Grimes and the dogs for defamation...pointing the finger at them...its ridiculous.
Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine because it reinforced an uncorroborated assumption that Madeleine is dead.
Ridiculous is a good word.....dont forget in alot of these cases the plaintiffs and their lawyers greatly exagerrate everything as much as possible, start as high up and you might get half way down......read this but try and skim over the crappy lying parts
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/27JULY9/MIRROR_12_07_09.htm
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/27JULY9/sundayMiror_12_7_09.jpg
Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine because it reinforced an uncorroborated assumption that Madeleine is dead.
You are forgetting something, both police forces are investigating (Abduction). they are not and I (repeat) not investigating Amaral's theories in his book. "Tick Tock"
(courts dont do vague unproven and without evidence)
This works both ways does it not, I like this 8((()*/ thank you redblossom 10 out 10
I would like to see Amaral's evidence that the wee girl is dead,ive yet to see any,and the court will agree theres no evidence of his claim, Defamation and Distress I agree with.
I would like to see Amaral's evidence that the wee girl is dead,ive yet to see any,and the court will agree theres no evidence of his claim, Defamation and Distress I agree with.
Correct, and regardless to what Annaguedes reports,the case is looking good for the McCanns.
I could say more but I don't wish to spoil it for anyone.
I know what Amaral was,and I agree Amaral's personal opinion is just his opinion,no evidence to back him up on the death of the girl.
(courts dont do vague unproven and without evidence)
This works both ways does it not, I like this 8((()*/ thank you redblossom 10 out 10
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
Perhaps they should have thought about that BEFORE they left their 3 children on their own EVERY NIGHT.
Its not Amarals fault the child went missing is it?
He did what ALL good coppers do, look at the parents and friends first.
85% of all abductions are parent/friend related so the percentage is quite high that he is correct.
The parents were not that upset that they didnt go off on jaunts all over the world and LEFT THEIR PRECIOUS surviving children on their own with family....
I read the book it made no difference to me whatsoever however, the behaviour of the parents, did sadly.
I stand by both, (they had stopped looking for the girl) (The PJ are now investigating abduction) (They are no longer investigating Amaral's theory)
Why would The Judge want to know how much money Goncalo Amaral has earned if she isn't considering how much to award The McCanns?
And break secrecy laws, no can do, you will have to wait like everyone else.
I would like to see Amaral's evidence that the wee girl is dead,ive yet to see any,and the court will agree theres no evidence of his claim, Defamation and Distress I agree with.
I know what Amaral was,and I agree Amaral's personal opinion is just his opinion,no evidence to back him up on the death of the girl.
Correct, and regardless to what Annaguedes reports,the case is looking good for the McCanns.
I could say more but I don't wish to spoil it for anyone.
Looking good? ...in what way shape or form??
The McCanns have summarily failed to bring any evidence to the court which could in any way prove that the search was hampered by the book. In fact the opposite is true as Mr Amarals book has made Maddie a household name around the globe. Dead or alive Amaral has most certainly promoted Maddie to a wide audience. In attempting to ban his book the McCanns effectively scored an own goal. It wasn't Maddie they were concerned about but their own self righteousness.
Why do people always make the wrong assumptions?? Eleanor, the judge couldn't care less dear, it was Isabel Duarte who requested the info on behalf of the McCanns.
I SO AGREE WITH YOU Angelo.
Well sadly the concern for the WEE child stopped the moment they hit PDL didnt it....and now they have the GALL to blame EVERYONE ELSE....shame on them i say.
They should use ALL their energies to keep their surviving children safe.
Its always an excuse its always SOMEONE ELSES FAULT...never the parents....
if you hold a nice juicy steak in your hands you cant blame the tiger for eating it and the rest of you and you cant blame an abductor for taking advantage of slack parenting...... 8()(((@#
Your children are the most important part of your life, and should be protected at ALL times and blo^dy hell even made worse the mother is a Roman Catholic. Our children are our most precious things in life.......
Yes accidents happen, even with the most diligent of parents, but it is usually because they took their eyes of the ball even for a few seconds.
BY LEAVING their children unattended and in an UNLOCKED ROOM, they made it POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO GO INTO THEIR APARTMENT AND TAKE THE CHILD AWAY....
JEEZ its not rocket science.
It is one of the aspects of this that really gets me - we are constantly being told "they made a mistake so have we all"!.... A mistake is one thing and one usually learns from it not to do whatever it was again. This was a deliberate and repeated decision, even after knowing that two of the children had been crying for them. That is not, to my mind, a mistake
Do you have proof that it was Isobel Duarte who requested this information?
Is there any reason for why she should not have done?
And which ever way you look at it, it is The Judge who has to decide on any amount.
It is one of the aspects of this that really gets me - we are constantly being told "they made a mistake so have we all"!.... A mistake is one thing and one usually learns from it not to do whatever it was again. This was a deliberate and repeated decision, even after knowing that two of the children had been crying for them. That is not, to my mind, a mistake
I think what you're missing is that he was a policeman, not a prosecutor. Portugal's judiciary spoke in the documentation that accompanied the shelving of the case. Amaral's personal opinion is just that... opinion.
Yes my dear. Its all in yesterdays report which I believe will be posted shortly. Isabel Duarte raised the issue... not the judge.
Clarence Mitchell frequently said in interviews they made a mistake on that night....
Yes my dear. Its all in yesterdays report which I believe will be posted shortly. Isabel Duarte raised the issue... not the judge.
Fine. What's wrong with that? Obviously The Judge agreed with the request. But it will be interesting to see the context in which the request was made.
I stand by both, (they had stopped looking for the girl) (The PJ are now investigating abduction) (They are no longer investigating Amaral's theory)So you think that a book which was published after the shelving of the case and before the re-opening of said case, negatively impacted the search?
So you think that a book which was published after the shelving of the case and before the re-opening of said case, negatively impacted the search?
Surely if there was a causal link (which I don't think there is) the logical thing would be case closed = book published= case reopened, meaning that it had a positive impact.
What you appear to be arguing is that a book being published after the shelving of the case is having some kind of strange time travelling retroactive effect.
Admittedly it would be wicked cool if that were the case, but unless Dr Amaral has found a stable, transversable wormhole, B can not have an effect on A if A happened first.
So you think that a book which was published after the shelving of the case and before the re-opening of said case, negatively impacted the search?
Surely if there was a causal link (which I don't think there is) the logical thing would be case closed = book published= case reopened, meaning that it had a positive impact.
What you appear to be arguing is that a book being published after the shelving of the case is having some kind of strange time travelling retroactive effect.
Admittedly it would be wicked cool if that were the case, but unless Dr Amaral has found a stable, transversable wormhole, B can not have an effect on A if A happened first.
EXACTLY.
This is the one thing people seem to forget the book was published AFTER THE FACT, not before, so how could it have influenced anyone....
The arguement should be anyway you dont need a book to read about the case the Internet is AWASH with it more then you can cope with.
Amarals was just a theory.
Money grabbing comes to mind ..... sue sue sue....it wont bring back the child will it.
Sadly.
... troll comment removed ...
Scotty seems to have left the discussion without answering the perfectly reasonable question asked of him. Sad that....
I've never seen a finer demonstration of dematerialization 8)-)))
Can I just say that the McCann's are in no way stupid and neither is their lawyer.
If you think they are having a libel case, because 'the book didn't influence the search for Madeleine' then why is there a libel case?
Why take someone to court if there is no evidence?
My opinion is that Amaral's book would have had an impact on any person who may have had evidence about what happened to Madeleine after the case was closed.
Especially those living in Portugal, who would know Amaral and know he was the chief police officer in charge of the case. He would have a great influence on what they thought about the McCann case. Reading that Amaral had concluded that Madeleine had died in the apartment and that the McCann's were guilty of faking an abduction and hiding her body. The TRUTH of the Lie the book was titled, people would tend to believe what he wrote.
Anyone who may have had information about Madeleine or who had taken her would, after reading Amaral's book think twice about what they knew. Think, Amaral says she is dead, what I saw or heard couldn't be of any relevance.
Very very poor argument.....
At least Lace is prepared to put forward an argument, Redblossom, and not just abuse!
Well thats credit to her but its still very poor......to say people who thought they had info would just say oh well I must be wrong.....cos Mr Amaral thinks this and that..... Sorry doesnt wash
Oh I agree - but the contrast with the late Scotty is very clear, whatever you think of the argument!
What about the people who rang in with sightings who were told that madeleine was dead?
These people seemed to believe what they were told. Would that wash with you?
ROFL....that didnt take long....must be the shortest lived troll to date...not even a half clever one....must learn how to do that glowy posting...obviously scotty is soooo proud of it hehe
Id like to see your hard evidence for that statement....
Can I just say that the McCann's are in no way stupid and neither is their lawyer.
If you think they are having a libel case, because 'the book didn't influence the search for Madeleine' then why is there a libel case?
Why take someone to court if there is no evidence?
My opinion is that Amaral's book would have had an impact on any person who may have had evidence about what happened to Madeleine after the case was closed.
Especially those living in Portugal, who would know Amaral and know he was the chief police officer in charge of the case. He would have a great influence on what they thought about the McCann case. Reading that Amaral had concluded that Madeleine had died in the apartment and that the McCann's were guilty of faking an abduction and hiding her body. The TRUTH of the Lie the book was titled, people would tend to believe what he wrote.
Anyone who may have had information about Madeleine or who had taken her would, after reading Amaral's book think twice about what they knew. Think, Amaral says she is dead, what I saw or heard couldn't be of any relevance.
There is evidence.
If there was an appeal out for anyone who had any information on the Madeleine McCann case to call the police. Do you think someone who had read Amaral's book saying she was dead and the McCann's were guilty, might think twice about ringing in with what ever information they might have?
So where is it?
And no I dont think anyone having information on a kidnapping or people or associates would not call the police because they read a book.......in the same vein as if I spotted a child that was e apit of Maddie I would report it.books or no books.....
You say it is a poor argument Redblossom.
Yet look at the people who say the McCann's are guilty. They mock the sightings. They believe Amaral.
Do you think they would bother ringing the police if they think they saw Madeleine?
You say it is a poor argument Redblossom.
Yet look at the people who say the McCann's are guilty. They mock the sightings. They believe Amaral.
Do you think they would bother ringing the police if they think they saw Madeleine?
Well that is you isn't it.
The McCann's lawyer said a lot of people are against her in Portugal. She said she can't talk about the case to many people.
Amaral was a senior police officer, people looked up to him and admired him. His book would definitely influence peoples way of thinking.
Well that is you isn't it.
The McCann's lawyer said a lot of people are against her in Portugal. She said she can't talk about the case to many people.
Amaral was a senior police officer, people looked up to him and admired him. His book would definitely influence peoples way of thinking.
You say it is a poor argument Redblossom.
Yet look at the people who say the McCann's are guilty. They mock the sightings. They believe Amaral.
Do you think they would bother ringing the police if they think they saw Madeleine?
Well that is you isn't it.
The McCann's lawyer said a lot of people are against her in Portugal. She said she can't talk about the case to many people.
Amaral was a senior police officer, people looked up to him and admired him. His book would definitely influence peoples way of thinking.
ROFL....that didnt take long....must be the shortest lived troll to date...not even a half clever one....must learn how to do that glowy posting...obviously scotty is soooo proud of it hehe
Maybe youre wrongly conflating two issues.....and to think either of em would have any bearing in NOT reporting information is still silly to me bbl
ISABEL DUARTE: Because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and a mother that have killed the daughter and got rid of the corpse.
What did I miss? Did Scotty blow his top?
ISABEL DUARTE: Because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and a mother that have killed the daughter and got rid of the corpse.
An interesting video Redblossom. I wonder if David Cameron and his pal at the former News of the World now being prosecuted for phone tapping have a case to answer? I wonder will the Rebekah Brooks trial expose more than a bit of phone tapping?
Resolution Red 8(0(*
Can you spell that out for us thickos pls?
@)(++(*
8((()*/ That was the word AR used:
I'm hopeful when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we will be able to bring some sort of resolution.
Whether we will be able to solve it is a different issue, but I hope that we will be able to have the ability to move the investigation on.
No it wont. As Amaral has said in the past they wont find Madeleine in any PT court......but of course any monies they make will go straight in the fund to continue the search once SY have given up......you know the 11m quid projected that it will cost SY...if they make no progress....then the Mccanns can hire more PIs.....that might do better than SY and all their previous ones.....and Pj and LP...all clubbed together.....
And where will the McCanns get money from if there's no payout awarded from Amaral?
Who will be the next person they will sue?
Losing against Amaral surely would diminish many of their arguments and make their general legal position much more difficult in the future.
What are we saying? That because of the high profile nature of the case and the fact that a sometimes negative media is playing a big role, there will always be someone next in line to be sued in order to to top up the fund?
How long would that type of strategy be sustainable?
But what if they win? Which is looking increasingly likely after yesterday's fiasco. Defence Witnesses dismissed and Evidence Withheld?
This is not looking good.
ISABEL DUARTE: Because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and a mother that have killed the daughter and got rid of the corpse.
If they win then we will all have to accept that open discussion and honestly expressed views and opinions will be just as dramatically affected
It has been a very risky move, but the McCanns must have been confident ( and very well advised ) before they took it
I'm intrigued by this because I haven't seen this quote before. Where did you find it Lace?
She surely only would have wanted/needed to discuss her case with colleagues and I find it impossible to imagine that she would be shunned by them - the nature of their profession blah blah... (Btw is she a Barrister?).
If she's tried to talk about it with friends (which I don't for a moment believe has) then she deserves their opinions.
If this is a genuine quote it looks as if it's taken out of context. Why would she be whiney? She has more dignity than that.
Thank you Icabod - will look now but my immediate reaction is that she shouldn't be talking to friends. She's supposed to be professional and all should be in confidence.
Thank you Icabod - will look now but my immediate reaction is that she shouldn't be talking to friends. She's supposed to be professional and all should be in confidence.
You will find the quote ( spoken directly by Duarte, and entirely 'in context' ) in Redblossom's post ( reply 902 on this thread )
Her friends, Duarte says, will not speak to her about the case because they believe she is defending parents who killed their child
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction but I'm too tired to look at the video - I take everyone's word for it.
If, as Eleanor says, it's her friends who aren't talking to her, that paints a different picture for me.
I'm interested because my late husband was a Barrister although he never went into practice.
I hope if he had and defended (to my eyes) the indefensible my friends would have understood.
One thing I know. He would never, never have talked about his cases to me or friends.
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction but I'm too tired to look at the video - I take everyone's word for it.
If, as Eleanor says, it's her friends who aren't talking to her, that paints a different picture for me.
I'm interested because my late husband was a Barrister although he never went into practice.
I hope if he had and defended (to my eyes) the indefensible my friends would have understood.
I should have thought so to
Even the guilty are entitled to legal representation ( not that I am saying the McCanns are guilty of any crime )
Isobel Duarte's friends would surely acknowledge that simple principal, on which the law is based, and respect her for upholding it
I think, perhaps, Duarte was being her customary 'dramatic' self ... and, in an attempt to emphasise the effect Amaral's book had on the public, introduced the almost inconcievable scenario of her own friends rejecting her because they had been so influenced by the former detective's opinions
It was a silly, elaborate, and frankly unbelievable little anecdote
Some people on this Forum believe the lies and innuendo in Amaral's book. So why not in Portugal?
However, I do have to say that not all Portuguese people are thus affected.
One would have hoped that Duarte's friends knew her better than to believe ''the lies and innuendo''. She's trying to do her job - who's to say she believes the McCann's?
I don't think that is quite the point. The friends and acquaintances are quite at liberty to believe the lies and innuendo. It is the fact that they believed them so strongly as to ostracise her that is worrying.
What nonsense
You don't believe that for a moment do you Eleanor ... not really ?
You know that the circle of friends Isabel Duarte has would accept it even if she were defending people who were 'perhaps' guilty ... and would not dream of 'ostracising' her because of it
You know that really, don't you ? ... of course you do
I don't think that is quite the point. The friends and acquaintances are quite at liberty to believe the lies and innuendo. It is the fact that they believed them so strongly as to ostracise her that is worrying.
If it's true that they ostracised her Eleanor. What reason is there for her to state that to the watching world? I'm sure enough of myself and my friends that in her position I wouldn't dream of dragging in my friends to bolster my professional work.
Would you?
I don't think so, having read your posts elsewhere.
Tired now. Goodnight xx
Have you never seen someone commenting or heard someone saying, "How can that person defend such a vile criminal?" I have, many times.
And I very much doubt that Isobel Duarte is lying about this.
I had to log back in to answer you.
Of course I've said it myself many, many times.
Through my OH and his love and respect of the law I grew to understand that everyone is entitled to a Defence.
Hopefully liars will be revealed if they can be brought into court. Therein lies the problem with the McCann's.
Thanks for your answer.
The McCanns are not on trial here. In fact they have never even been arrested, let alone charged or brought to trial.
Amaral is on trial, and he is already a convicted liar, so it isn't difficult to see that he has a problem with the truth.
And then he was on TV last week, doing it again. And if that isn't asking for trouble then I don't know what is.
Her name is Isabel not Isobel!
I don't think that is quite the point. The friends and acquaintances are quite at liberty to believe the lies and innuendo. It is the fact that they believed them so strongly as to ostracise her that is worrying.
What a load of rubbish really. I got confused it doesnt take much i thought you were talking about Mrs McCann but your talking about their barrister or whatever she is.
To become a barrister one would think you had the hide of a rhino. The job cant be easy for sure especially defending dodgy people.
Its more likely her so called friends just wanted an EXCUSE not to speak to her lol....sounds a bit off the wall to me.
I do not for one minute believe this is true or happened. No one is going to ignore a true friend because of Amarals book, which actually I found quite balanced.
Actually the truth of it, i wish they asked us the public, it was never Amaral who changed my mind about the parents, it was the DOGS and their reaction to them.
Gerry McCann....."Ask the dogs" Sandra......
Sandra: But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by british and not portuguese dogs?
Kate: Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...
Sandra: So you don't have an explanation for that?
Gerry: Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.
Sandra: Ask the dogs? No Gerry. Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?
Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
Sandra: Unreliable?
Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically.
...
I KNEW THEN there was something fishy about all this. IF british dogs of high calibre were brought in at great expense to find some EVIDENCE and they did, and I was INNOCENT, I would sure as hell want to know what could have happened.
No it wasnt Amarals book that turned me it was his dismissive attitude that did it for me.....
So, Amaral will now have to hand in all the dirty money he has made off Madeleine's case?
It would be really cool it this money is given to a good cause.. like for example Missing People charity.. ?>)()<
It might be a good idea if Amaral paid some of his colossal debts. None of which he made any attempt to pay during the year in which he could have done.
It might be a good idea if Amaral paid some of his colossal debts. None of which he made any attempt to pay during the year in which he could have done.
So, Amaral will now have to hand in all the dirty money he has made off Madeleine's case?
It would be really cool it this money is given to a good cause.. like for example Missing People charity.. ?>)()<
When was this decided? He's actually been ordered to hand over his earnings? I've missed this! Can you provide a cite please?
You missed the question mark Cariad..
So, Amaral will now have to hand in all the dirty money he has made off Madeleine's case?
Wonder of he will have to sell the big bling earing
So, Amaral will now have to hand in all the dirty money he has made off Madeleine's case?
It would be really cool it this money is given to a good cause.. like for example Missing People charity.. ?>)()<
Ask yourself two questions
1) why if the mccanns think his book was libellous and harmed the search and caused them to feel destroyed etc etc did they wait a whole year after publication to sue him?
2) do you think if the mccanns win this and any huge amount, they will donate it to missing people? Hello?
@)(++(*
Oh and you will have to explain what dirty money means in this case.....with examples
>@@(*&)
without any religious pontificating overtones would be nice.....too
maybe chuck in a sentence or two about the difference between Mr Amaral writing on his experience in the case, other authors doing the same, Mrs Mccann doing the same.....
1. They didn't. The case took that long to come to court. (plus time added on from TeamAmaral fleeing in terror and proceedings having to be re-scheduled.
2. Proceedings from any successful legal action will be put to the findmadeleine fund.
Oh and you will have to explain what dirty money means in this case.....with examples
Oh yes! With pleasure!I expect a more rational post tomorrow.., as per my original request which you can reread whilst scrolling back
Making money out of a missing girl with speculative and unproven theories with intention to get stinky rich because this world has many conspirators with no real life and who life just these conspiracy theories is disgusting in all moral and ethical ways of life. Especially if you are using your career or ex career as a weapon for it.
Oh yes! With pleasure!
Making money out of a missing girl with speculative and unproven theories with intention to get stinky rich because this world has many conspirators with no real life and who life just these conspiracy theories is disgusting in all moral and ethical ways of life. Especially if you are using your career or ex career as a weapon for it.
'speculative and unproven theories'
Like 'abduction' for example.
Blimey!! Ed Milliband has just chosen Hitchhiker for his book on Desert Island Discs! Spookey!
Yes, I own them all. Along with the Dirk Gentley's (which I actually prefer) and the Salmon of doubt. I'm a massive comedy science fantasy fan.
That's what I thought.
Ah, the good old days! From what I recall the telly series was actually quite good! Saying that, If I find a DL of it, I'll probably be shocked at how bad it was!
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DrAtCDEgFLpY&sa=U&ei=SgKSUoTQDceqhQeD8oDQAg&ved=0CD4QtwIwBg&sig2=e6O6c8i_OzRf2LxntDigfw&usg=AFQjCNGnT-iM9PjSE2QVz8r3_mM8BYd_6g
Time for the judge to decide as the McCann libel trial continues today in Lisbon.
This, of course, will go a long way towards telling The Judge what sort of effect Goncalo Amaral's book has had in certain quarters.
i.e. the often reputed poor behaviour of certain citizens of this country abroad ?
What? The poor behaviour of supporters of the blessed Goncalo Amaral?
Nah, no points on that one.
As Redblossom has already posted, the Judge has deferred making a decision on whether the parties will be allowed to submit statements to the court until the next hearing which will be on 7th January 2014.
Another witness, Paulo Sargento, was today dismissed and will no longer give evidence to the court.
More later...
As Redblossom has already posted, the Judge has deferred making a decision on whether the parties will be allowed to submit statements to the court until the next hearing which will be on 7th January 2014.
Another witness, Paulo Sargento, was today dismissed and will no longer give evidence to the court.
More later...
Thanks John
So a trial that was originally set to last three weeks goes into the fifth month !
As Redblossom has already posted, the Judge has deferred making a decision on whether the parties will be allowed to submit statements to the court until the next hearing which will be on 7th January 2014.
Another witness, Paulo Sargento, was today dismissed and will no longer give evidence to the court.
More later...
Have you not read Bleak House?
Animal Farm might be a better idea. How boring was that?
Oh My God. Not The Paulo Sargento who purports to to be a Forensic Psychologist, and who said that Leonor Cipriano was guilty because she was wearing a black blouse and red trouser?
Very sensible to dismiss him. The man is an old school ...moderated...
I was thinking of the length of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case!
There's more of Shakespeare than Dickens about this case
... Merchant of Venice as opposed to Bleak House
I hate to lower the tone, but It's more of a carry on film if you ask me.
Carry on suing!
I don't know if this is standard practice in Portugal or its just this case, but it ain't 'alf dragging on!
If no-one had libelled the McCanns in the first place - there would be no need for any libel cases.
If I had been publically and repeatedly wrongly accused of hideous crimes against my own child - I would want to do exactly the same as the McCanns. I can't imagine why any normal person would not want to.
Why do you say he purports to be a psychologist? Why the continual denigration of anyone whose views you cant stand? he is...he is a criminal psychologist and a university professor...I think he probably knows more about crime and psychology and whatever else he has studied than Richard Judy or Lorraine.....or other such ignorant pillocks....or you.....as for beng a fascist...well, that does roll off your tongue so often and so easily all the time....!!! You dont know his political views, youre the only one purporting here
Look him up at Lusofona Uni...he no more purports that he is a said professional than gerry mccann purports to be a heart consultant
Eta as for hm sayng smeone must be guilty of a heinous crime because they wore a black blouse...well, Im sure that is a disingenuous and out of context exageration of what was actually said........
It goes without saying, they brought it all upon their own heads. As for libelling them, well, isn't that what this fiasco is all about?
But he has been dismissed. Or would you like to argue that one?
But he has been dismissed. Or would you like to argue that one?
If no-one had libelled the McCanns in the first place - there would be no need for any libel cases.So much wrong with this post......you dont KNOW they have been libelled therefore are in no position to state it as a fact and therefore the rest of your post is nonsense.....or rather just a hypothetical situation, and as such, has some merit....Id wait for the judges verdict if I were you.....a police theory, held by a team as well, cannot be libel anyhow.....thats going from the ridiculous to the sublime....JMO
If I had been publically and repeatedly wrongly accused of hideous crimes against my own child - I would want to do exactly the same as the McCanns. I can't imagine why any normal person would not want to.
The way I see it Eleanor, the defence don't need him to testify and if the McCanns cannot bring anything else to the table than what we have already heard then I don't hold out much chance of a million quid going to Rothley or anywhere else for that matter.
I am not interested in The Million Quid. An amount has to be specified. The Court will award whatever it deems appropriate.
So far we have had McCann friends and family saying that The McCanns were seriously upset. And who could argue with that?
And then we had a group of people, all but one of which is a personal friend of Amaral. Please note that The Judge enquired of this fact in every case.
This would automatically affect the opinion of the witness.
There is a vast difference between the two. And if you can't see that then more fool you.
Sargento? He is no better than The McCann Witness that you all poo hooed. And probably not half so good. But we won't ever know that because he has been dismissed.
So much wrong with this post......you dont KNOW they have been libelled therefore are in no position to state it as a fact and therefore the rest of your post is nonsense.....or rather just a hypothetical situation, and as such, has some merit....Id wait for the judges verdict if I were you.....a police theory, held by a team as well, cannot be libel anyhow.....thats going from the ridiculous to the sublime....JMO
But he has been dismissed. Or would you like to argue that one?
I am not interested in The Million Quid. An amount has to be specified. The Court will award whatever it deems appropriate.
So far we have had McCann friends and family saying that The McCanns were seriously upset. And who could argue with that?
And then we had a group of people, all but one of which is a personal friend of Amaral. Please note that The Judge enquired of this fact in every case.
This would automatically affect the opinion of the witness.
There is a vast difference between the two. And if you can't see that then more fool you.
Sargento? He is no better than The McCann Witness that you all poo hooed. And probably not half so good. But we won't ever know that because he has been dismissed.
I am not interested in The Million Quid. An amount has to be specified. The Court will award whatever it deems appropriate.
So far we have had McCann friends and family saying that The McCanns were seriously upset. And who could argue with that?
And then we had a group of people, all but one of which is a personal friend of Amaral. Please note that The Judge enquired of this fact in every case.
This would automatically affect the opinion of the witness.
There is a vast difference between the two. And if you can't see that then more fool you.
Sargento? He is no better than The McCann Witness that you all poo hooed. And probably not half so good. But we won't ever know that because he has been dismissed.
The witnesses on behalf of the McCanns never testified anything that they had witnessed first hand, all of it was hearsay. Kate said this, Gerry said that, etc. I don't know if anyone has noticed that the friends who testified for them only met them after Maddie disappeared.
Hundreds of professors have asked to be dismissed from the Universidade Lusófona because their salaries have been cut up to 60%.
It goes without saying, they brought it all upon their own heads. As for libelling them, well, isn't that what this fiasco is all about?
No-one doubts they'd be upset by the book and film (probably more by the film than the book). Is that relevant to the case though? Have they demonstrated in that courtroom anything more than that?
I suspect most of the serious business of the trial has been in the form of written submissions
What do you think it would have taken to stop Amaral? He was just going on and on, and getting worse by the day.
"I hope they sue me." He said. "I will welcome it, in fact." He said. And so they did.
Why do you suspect that ?
There has been no evidence to suggest that is the case
Had there been 'written submissions' as you presume, then surely there would be the opportunity for them to be contested and questioned in open court ?
That has not occured
Well they did stop him I guess, temporarily, but you can't win a case just by saying the book and/or film upset you. Have they demonstrated libel? Have they demonstrated the book and/or film influenced the public more than the inconclusive report accompanying the shelving of the case?
I think the structure of a trial under the inquisitorial system is quite different from the one we are used to (I am assuming you live in Britain?) under the adversarial system, where absolutely everything relevant is brought out in open court.
Well, that latest demonstration outside The Court by a bunch of idiot Brits won't have helped all that much.
The witnesses on behalf of the McCanns never testified anything that they had witnessed first hand, all of it was hearsay. Kate said this, Gerry said that, etc. I don't know if anyone has noticed that the friends who testified for them only met them after Maddie disappeared.
But if either party submitted written evidence that the opposing party felt was untrue, or unjustified, or incomplete, then surely they would have the opportunity ( in open court ) to raise such concerns/objections ?
So you think libelling someone i.e. publically telling lies about them - can be justified? I don't.
Of course it's not hearsay. The witnesses have all spent time with the McCanns and could see for themselves (first hand) the affect Amaral's libellous book and statements were having on them.
That was a false report Eleanor. There were no protesters outside court today at the Lisbon libel hearing.
What emotional throes the McCanns may or may not have gone through will hardly determine the outcome of a libel case. They are claiming that Mr Amaral's book damaged the search for Madeleine when it is clear to see that the opposite is true. It was the McCanns by their own actions thwarted the search, a search which they have never physically participated in for some 6 years.
Thanks for clearing that up JohnNo probs 8((()*/
That was a false report Eleanor. There were no protesters outside court today at the Lisbon libel hearing.
they are also claiming the book libelled them...none of u8s understand Portuguese law but certainly in the uk it would be classed as libel
they are also claiming the book libelled them...none of u8s understand Portuguese law but certainly in the uk it would be classed as libel
I don't know about that Dave. After all the book was based entirely on the police investigation and where the evidence pointed.
That was a false report Eleanor. There were no protesters outside court today at the Lisbon libel hearing.
So who sent in that one? We were supposed to be frightfully impressed by this. The whole world is supporting Amaral?
Oh Dear. Not true.
I don't think it's the book that's the problem. It can't be denied the film is a good deal more dogmatic. >@@(*&)
As if anyone thought it wasn't, false John.
As far as I know he says Maddie died in the apt and the MCCanns covered it up...staged an abduction...told lies...disposed of the body one month later ... I think police reports may well be covered by privilege..as are court proceedings and statements made in parliament...amaral wrote it all in a book
So who sent in that one? We were supposed to be frightfully impressed by this. The whole world is supporting Amaral?
Oh Dear. Not true.
Let's see.
How many people think Stuart Prior said, in England, people have been arrested on less than the PJ had against the McCanns?
That's from Amaral's book.
What lies did he tell?? Wasn't the shelving of the case based on the same evidence?
Oh yes, I can believe that. Police generally don't mess about in any country in cases where children have disappeared without any trace.
Of course you believe it.
You read it in Amaral's book
And the book has not harmed the search for Madeleine?
Of course you believe it.
You read it in Amaral's book
And the book has not harmed the search for Madeleine?
Quite a few didn't actually. I meant to clarify this earlier but got sidetracked.
For those who are interested Anne is doing a short Report on todays events.
It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.
I don't think it's the book that's the problem. It can't be denied the film is a good deal more dogmatic. >@@(*&)
It's a slightly obscure and off-beat line of reasoning that blaming someone -- anyone -- should take priority over identifying true culprits of crimes and establishing what crimes they are (or are not) guilty of ...
Oh golly gosh. Casey Anthony was acquitted. And I should think so too.
It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.
Let us do Libel 101 again. It is not necessary to 'tell lies' to have libelled someone.
If a remark you make causes a negative effect on the claimant, then it must be decided if this 'defamation' is libel/slander or not (terms vary between jurisdictions but the idea is the same.
The respondent may either admit libel or claima defence. One defence is 'the truth' but this defence is not absolute. There are other defences, but this is the one that applies to the need for 'lies'. Lies are not necessary for libel to be proved.
Experts in stupidity and incompetence if the Barry George case is anything to go by.
Let's see.
How many people think Stuart Prior said, in England, people have been arrested on less than the PJ had against the McCanns?
That's from Amaral's book.
John:
I think police reports may well be covered by privilege..as are court proceedings and statements made in parliament...amaral wrote it all in a book
Hang on, hang on. In the context of a criminal investigation where the reports are confined to the official files, yes!
But when the allegations are repeated in a publication apart from the official files, that's very different ...
Well unless his book has been incorrectly translated - it is littered with downright lies, lies by omission, gross distortions of the truth, and spiteful innuendo designed to make the reader believe what he wants them to believe regardless of whether it is factually correct or not.
Have you not read it?
Not according to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa when the book ban was overturned In October 2010. The three judges stated that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to express his opinions on the case, which are based on the police files as well as his 20 plus years experience in the PJ. You seem to believe that people do not have the right to express any opinion which might upset the McCanns, even when based on facts. In Portugal, police files and court decisions are always made public so that people can discuss them and even disagree publicly if they believe that they are not correct.
Please give some examples!
Not according to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa when the book ban was overturned In October 2010. The three judges stated that Gonçalo Amaral had the right to express his opinions on the case, which are based on the police files as well as his 20 plus years experience in the PJ. You seem to believe that people do not have the right to express any opinion which might upset the McCanns, even when based on facts. In Portugal, police files and court decisions are always made public so that people can discuss them and even disagree publicly if they believe that they are not correct.
It is funny really for me Montclair, as they need to worry more about what is in Newspapers then any book.
People believe EVERYTHING they read in the newspapers.
The thing is with GA book, only people interested in the case will have bought the book. I read it and there was NOTHING in it I didnt already know from the police files.
All this stuff in newspapers reaches far more people.
Look at the rubbish with Nigella Lawson at the moment because of the media everyone now thinks she is a crack head....
Like I said I read the book it did nothing to sway me from what I already felt.
the court gave an interim ruling that he had a right to express his opinions...they did not rule whether those opinions are libellous
I've already done that loads of times.
For instance - he claims JT formally identified Murat. That is a lie - and there is nothing in the files to support his claim.
I take it very little took place at the court yesterday.
the court gave an interim ruling that he had a right to express his opinions...they did not rule whether those opinions are libellous
Freedom of expression excludes defamation...Duhhhh
Freedom of expression excludes defamation...Duhhhh
Oh no it doesn't.
Oh yes it does. According to the Portuguese Constitution the Freedom of Expression is a fundamental right equivalent to the Personality Rights (that include image, good name, status, etc). They cannot overcome one another, but if a set of judges in the Supreme Court considered that the Right to Express his ideas was not colluding with the McCann's Rights of Personality, than Gonçalo Amaral's book, the VC DVD, GP publishers and TVI documentary are not libeled for defamation.
What the McCann are attempting is a specificity of the civil law that is called "civil responsibility" for damages suffered, and that can be applied even if there was no intention to harm.
In synthesis, what the McCann are trying to get is MONEY, plain and simple.
If that were the case, there would be no libel law in Portugal. What is the current trial about then?
British Libel Law is similar- it is a civil, not criminal action.
This trial is about Civil Compensation, not Libel. That was the previous one that was won by Amaral.
wrong again Luz 8-)(--)
This trial is about Civil Compensation, not Libel. That was the previous one that was won by Amaral.
In Portugal defamation is a crime. Nevertheless that is often mixed with Civil Law because what people search is compensation. Usually both, the criminal defamation and compensation are tried together, but in this case it was separate, so what we have now is the second half of the "Libel Trial", the civil compensation.
Since there was no crime, as determined by the carious instances of the previous Trial process, this attempt to gain a compensation has to be based on very objective facts that there was a damage suffered.
When I say objective I mean material but also, for instance, psychological if testified by a recognized expert, expected gains that were lost if certified by an economy or accounts expert, etc....
Oh yes it does. According to the Portuguese Constitution the Freedom of Expression is a fundamental right equivalent to the Personality Rights (that include image, good name, status, etc). They cannot overcome one another, but if a set of judges in the Supreme Court considered that the Right to Express his ideas was not colluding with the McCann's Rights of Personality, than Gonçalo Amaral's book, the VC DVD, GP publishers and TVI documentary are not libeled for defamation.
What the McCann are attempting is a specificity of the civil law that is called "civil responsibility" for damages suffered, and that can be applied even if there was no intention to harm.
In synthesis, what the McCann are trying to get is MONEY, plain and simple.
Hark at the "legal expert"
@)(++(*
Am I correct in assuming that you are basing your argument on article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution - paragraphs 1 and 2, Luz?
1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
you have made it very clear with your posts that you have no understanding of Portuguese law or what is happening at the moment...feel free to dream on
Am I correct in assuming that you are basing your argument on article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution - paragraphs 1 and 2, Luz?
1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
We can have as many legal 'experts' as we like on here and none of it counts for anything, only that of the judge is important.
Absolutely right.
We can have as many legal 'experts' as we like on here and none of it counts for anything, only that of the judge is important.
Of course Luz. However, as you will aware - that is not the whole of article 37. It goes on to say:
3. Infractions committed in the exercise of these rights are subject to the general principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and the competence to consider them shall pertain to the courts of law or an independent administrative entity respectively, as laid down by law.
4. Every natural and legal person shall be equally and effectively ensured the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.
Which is the problem for Amaral.
Which was given to the McCann on their first Trials. The first they won, as you must know, but in the end the Supreme Curt reaffirmed the Right to Freedom of Expression.
Which was given to the McCann on their first Trials. The first they won, as you must know, but in the end the Supreme Curt reaffirmed the Right to Freedom of Expression.
They retain that right - it cannot be removed. The first trial was about prior restraint, this trial is about personal damage.
Congratulations, you finally understood it!
If for nothing else I'm happy for contributing for this understanding. No defamation on trial, just compensation, right??????
Sometimes I feel I must be very clumsy with the english language, but in general I feel that most people prefer to ignore what I say or to trample over what I write.
Sometimes I feel I must be very clumsy with the english language, but in general I feel that most people prefer to ignore what I say or to trample over what I write.
Compensation for defamation
Santa paciência! Some people simply do not want to understand, do they?
The right of reply and correct is crucial. And in fact it has been neglected.
4. Every natural and legal person shall be equally and effectively ensured the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.
Which is the problem for Amaral.
The right of reply and correct is crucial. And in fact it has been neglected.
Which is the problem for the McCanns.
Not at all Luz. Your command of English is very good. The reason why perhaps your feel that way is because you seem to be incapable of appreciating that sometimes others hold views which are in opposition to your own. The matter of the Article 37 is a case in point - whilst it is clear that Amaral is relying on his right to freedom of expression, the Portuguese constitution provides for a right not to be defamed by someone exercising his right to freedom of expression.
The right of freedom of expression is not unrestrained - and anyone who argues to the contrary betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Whether this through ignorance or malice I cannot tell.
Luz raises an interesting point
We are lucky to have a member who has taken the time and trouble to attend every day of the trial. The court reports we have been privileged to, have made it clear that the trial has not addressed whether or not Amaral's book defamed or libelled the McCanns ... not a single piece of evidence has been produced in that regard
The trial has focussed, exclusively, on the 'damage' Amaral's book caused
How can this be accounted for, other than by the explanation given by Luz ?
Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.
We shall know more in the new year. Meanwhile we may speculate and may be right or wrong.
I just pick up a whiff here of protecting the myth. If the court finds against Amaral, then people will claim it was not libel but only compensation.
Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.Neither do I. I don't see why somebody would confess, therefore doubt will remain about what happened to the little girl. I've a feeling, though, that with time and knowledge the highly implausible from bed claim will perish.
The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has 'libelled' the McCanns
There has been no accusation, that I have seen, that what he wrote is 'untrue' .... what has been contested is that what he wrote was 'damaging'
The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has 'libelled' the McCanns
There has been no accusation, that I have seen, that what he wrote is 'untrue' .... what has been contested is that what he wrote was 'damaging'
The trial has not addressed the issue of whether or not Amaral has 'libelled' the McCannsYes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.
There has been no accusation, that I have seen, that what he wrote is 'untrue' .... what has been contested is that what he wrote was 'damaging'
Neither do I. I don't see why somebody would confess, therefore doubt will remain about what happened to the little girl. I've a feeling, though, that with time and knowledge the highly implausible from bed claim will perish.
You cant assert that is a lie, you werent there....just because its not in the files doesnt mean it didnt happen.....and we have tanners clear as mud rogatory which suggests she did! But lets not go over all that again, just now......if you say its a lie you have to prove its a lie and you cant.....
Yes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.
Damage to reputation is defamation. Defamation can be libel.
I can see the start of an excuse for failure being initiated here.
So where is her 'formal' witness statement? Why is this positive identification not listed in the AGs report as one of the major reasons why Murat was made an Arguido? Who else apart from Amaral has made that claim about JT?It might be in the LC files. After all it was an idea of the British, wasn't it ?
I will accept whatever ruling the Judge gives
At this point, though, I am confused about what, exactly, she will be ruling on
Is she judging whether or not Amaral made false allegations against the McCanns, and therby damaged them ? ... or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by Amaral's allegations regardless of them being false or not ?
Yes and it has not been demonstrated that GA's intention was malicious.
Until Madeleine is found and the circumstances of her disappearance determined I cannot see anyone winning any defamation case in Portugal.
It might be in the LC files. After all it was an idea of the British, wasn't it ?
There's evidence in the files that some files aren't there and I'm not thinking of the paedo-files.
Watching the documentary, actually hearing it because the public could only see the back of the screen, I noticed that GA speaks of that episode. I don't think he would do that if there was nothing to support it.
I will accept whatever ruling the Judge givesOr is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by allegations that a criminal process supports, a criminal process that the MP turned public through DVDs ?
At this point, though, I am confused about what, exactly, she will be ruling on
Is she judging whether or not Amaral made false allegations against the McCanns, and therby damaged them ? ... or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by Amaral's allegations regardless of them being false or not ?
Or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by allegations that a criminal process supports, a criminal process that the MP turned public through DVDs ?
Some witnesses for the plaintiffs argued that the book was far more easy, entertaining and quick to read than the files, then had much more chances to be read.
Quote from: icabodcrane on Today at 04:46:07 PM
I will accept whatever ruling the Judge gives
At this point, though, I am confused about what, exactly, she will be ruling on
Is she judging whether or not Amaral made false allegations against the McCanns, and therby damaged them ? ... or is she judging whether or not the McCanns were damaged by Amaral's allegations regardless of them being false or not ?
That episode was an idea of the British police and since it was not an official diligence of the Portuguese investigation it is not in the Portuguese police files.This is not the only case of an informal diligence that is not registered in the files. We know only through Mrs McCann's book that they were interviewed in August 2007.
For the McCann, obtaining money seems to be all that counts.
So far they haven't been moved by anything else, not even to go to the places where sightings were signaled - in fact they always traveled away from it.
Money is the only stimuli that makes them move.
In Portuguese law, as in English, truth is an absolute defence.
In English law, implicit untruth can be libel as well as explicit.
I don't know about Portuguese law.
But this statement of Amaral's from his book is actually contradicted by what Amaral himself says before in the same section, and is certainly not true, as we know having seen the video ourselves:
Eddie did not hesitate for a moment. He was only interested in the McCanns' automobile. No other attracted his attention
Goncalo Amaral,
It might be in the LC files. After all it was an idea of the British, wasn't it ?
There's evidence in the files that some files aren't there and I'm not thinking of the paedo-files.
Watching the documentary, actually hearing it because the public could only see the back of the screen, I noticed that GA speaks of that episode. I don't think he would do that if there was nothing to support it.
I don't know the detail of the incident you have brought up, but it is an example of what has been totally absent in this trial ... direct rebuttal of the claims Amaral made in his book, proving them false ( libellous )
It is what I thought would be happening in this trial ... the McCanns 'proving' that Amaral lied
They have not
The entire case has been about how much damage the McCanns suffered as a result of Amaral's book ... but with no protestation made, or proof offered, that he lied about anything
I don't know the detail of the incident you have brought up, but it is an example of what has been totally absent in this trial ... direct rebuttal of the claims Amaral made in his book, proving them false ( libellous )
It is what I thought would be happening in this trial ... the McCanns 'proving' that Amaral lied
They have not
The entire case has been about how much damage the McCanns suffered as a result of Amaral's book ... but with no protestation made, or proof offered, that he lied about anything
The notion that Jane Tanner pointed the finger at Murat was never an idea of the British, no ...Please don't twist, Ferryman ! Nobody says as well that Mrs Oldfield and Payne and Mr O'Brien pointing the finger at Murat and confirming it two months after was an idea of the British...
For the McCann, obtaining money seems to be all that counts.
So far they haven't been moved by anything else, not even to go to the places where sightings were signaled - in fact they always traveled away from it.
Money is the only stimuli that makes them move.
Please don't twist, Ferryman ! Nobody says as well that Mrs Oldfield and Payne and Mr O'Brien pointing the finger at Murat and confirming it two months after was an idea of the British...
For the McCann, obtaining money seems to be all that counts.I wouldn't say so. I think this is mainly Mrs Duarte's objective. She lost the ban of the book, what can she win now apart from a substantial compensation ? I feel it's more her case than the McCann's one. The McCanns must have understood that winning the money that was asked will do no good to their already compromised popularity.
So far they haven't been moved by anything else, not even to go to the places where sightings were signaled - in fact they always traveled away from it.
Money is the only stimuli that makes them move.
I am twisting nothing.How do you know ? And have you forgotten already what you wrote earlier ?
Jane Tanner did not point a finger at Murat.
How do you know that ? Have you some knowledge about Mr McCann's salary ?
They are not poverty stricken and can live a very comfortable lifestyle on Gerry's salary as a Heart Consultant.
I think they just want him to stop spreading lies about them and about what happened to their daughter.How do you know that they are lies ? Do you know the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann ?
How do you know that ? Have you some knowledge about Mr McCann's salary ?
How do you know ? And have you forgotten already what you wrote earlier ?
She [Isabel Duarte] lost the ban of the book,No, Ferryman, this has been discussed many times. The Supreme Court judges the minor court, not the parties' allegations. If the Supreme Court judges the minor court (in this case the Appeal one) made some mistake, the process goes back to the first Court and is judged again.
Not strictly true.
She was never there to contest the lifting of the ban on the book.
The ruling that lifted it was ex-parte.
Amaral wrote in his book that Jane Tanner implicated Murat -- one of many inaccuracies ...How do you know that it is inaccurate ?
How do you know that it is inaccurate ?
No, Ferryman, this has been discussed many times. The Supreme Court judges the minor court, not the parties' allegations. If the Supreme Court judges the minor court (in this case the Appeal one) made some mistake, the process goes back to the first Court and is judged again.
Jane Tanner made it clear in her rogatory interview that she did not implicate Robert Murat.@)(++(*
Sometimes discussions miss the crucial point. The McCanns were unrepresented at the proceedings that lifted the injunction.Mr Amaral wasn't represented as well. Fifteen love
That is the meaning of ex-parte
One side not represented.
The McCanns were not represented.
@)(++(*
Mr Amaral wasn't represented as well. Fifteen love
In Portugal a NSH heart consultant having a family of 4 needs private resources to live comfortably.
Amaral made the appeal.
Try again ...
That's the way Appeals courts work. BTW, the hearing when the judge decided to implement the injunction on the book and the freezing of Gonçalo Amaral's assets as well as denying him his freedom of expression was carried out in total secrecy by the plaintiffs. The defendents, Gonçalo Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho and Guerra & Paz, were unaware of what was going on and were caught by surprise, with no possibility of presenting any arguments in their defense at that time.
Well I will have to warn my Professors that all they taught me is rubbish, according to some internet experts on portuguese law.
By the way, one of my Professors was someone you know, the ex-minister that appeared in a TV documentary about this case: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/11/cmtv-maddie-case-special-and-rua-segura.html (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/11/cmtv-maddie-case-special-and-rua-segura.html)
I love to be called ignorant by persons that never worked in the system, as I have, for much more than a decade.
Why does that make you laugh?Isn't that clear ?
Not in the UK. Doctors had their mouths stuffed with gold. Gerry's salary would be in the top 10%.In France a NHS heart consultant earns 84.000 €, gross.
In France a NHS heart consultant earns 84.000 €, gross.
After his ten or so years he will be at the top of his scale_ £101,451. He is likely to have at least another 20k from clinical excellence awards which all consultants normally get.A private consultant earns this. A heart surgeon earns much more (high insurance).
A private consultant earns this. A heart surgeon earns much more (high insurance).
A NHS heart consultant earns 84.000 gross at the top of his/her career. Awards only if he/she publishes (articles).
But Gerry McCann works in the UK and earns about 120k.
It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.Absolutely !
But Gerry McCann works in the UK and earns about 120k.How much earns a private consultant then ? One who has to be excellent to have clients ?
He's also supporting a family of 4 plus paying uni debts for two. 120k isn't rich any more.
How much earns a private consultant then ? One who has to be excellent to have clients ?
Thanks JohnI asked the defence lawyers whether it was normal and they said yes... They also said that criminal trials last even more.. years... This is contra productive.
So a trial that was originally set to last three weeks goes into the fifth month !
At his age he will have no uni debts to speak of. Average wage for a family of four is about 30k, he is on four times that.
120k is in the top 10%.
Another huge blow for the defence, losing their criminal psychologist. Oh dear o dear.Don't you understand that the lawyer who called him finally desisted ?
If no-one had libelled the McCanns in the first place - there would be no need for any libel cases.What if a normal person had accidentally killed their child, Benice ? Would s/he call the police and tell the truth ? And if not, would s/he be an abnormal person ?
If I had been publically and repeatedly wrongly accused of hideous crimes against my own child - I would want to do exactly the same as the McCanns. I can't imagine why any normal person would not want to.
No-one doubts they'd be upset by the book and film (probably more by the film than the book). Is that relevant to the case though? Have they demonstrated in that courtroom anything more than that?I don't think they have demonstrated it. Some of their witnesses tried it though. Do you remember the end of the documentary ?
This is one of the reasons why I'm amazed the McCanns kept such a lawyer.
Even the guilty are entitled to legal representation ( not that I am saying the McCanns are guilty of any crime )
Isobel Duarte's friends would surely acknowledge that simple principal, on which the law is based, and respect her for upholding it
I think, perhaps, Duarte was being her customary 'dramatic' self ... and, in an attempt to emphasise the effect Amaral's book had on the public, introduced the almost inconcievable scenario of her own friends rejecting her because they had been so influenced by the former detective's opinions
It was a silly, elaborate, and frankly unbelievable little anecdote
It's a mystery to me why are people so desperate to believe the McCanns are 'in it' for the money, when all the evidence shows the opposite to be the truth.You might be very right, Benice, but what is "all the evidence" actually ?
You might be very right, Benice, but what is "all the evidence" actually ?
Wouldn't have asked the question if it was clear.No, Ferryman, GA never covered up the torture of a woman, this is spreading a myth.
You accept accept the word of a disgraced ex-police officer with with a criminal conviction for lying to cover up the torture of a woman while in police custody.
Yet you refuse to accept the word of an honourable independent witness, Jane Tanner.
No, Ferryman, GA never covered up the torture of a woman, this is spreading a myth.
I don't know if Ms Tanner is honourable or not, I presume she is, but I'm sure she's not independent.
About her word, I wish she would have been clearer, for her own sake. The formal aspect of her rogatory interview speaks volumes about her state of mind. What one understands is that she thought the carrier was Mr Murat at the van time, but stopped thinking it at the rog time. I admit and understand that a lot of pressure was put on her and that she hardly could provide an untwisted answer.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/Smileys/custom/thinking.gif
Would you like to tell us what he was convicted for...according to the amnesty site he claimed that Leonor had fallen down the stairs...which is a lie
He is also accused of torturing Leandro and as far as I am aware that case is ongoing...doesn't sound like an honourable man
Don't you understand that the lawyer who called him finally desisted ?
The cipriano case is on another thread.
Take this there. 8((()*/
The cipriano case is on another thread.
Take this there. 8((()*/
How if Amaral has a conviction for perjury as a result of an attempted cover-up which would obviously be on official records could it be a myth?What attempted cover-up are you talking about ? Provide links, please.
Any idea why?Ask the lawyer, Carana.
What attempted cover-up are you talking about ? Provide links, please.
check out amnesty international...the PJ tried to cover up the injuries to Leonor Cipriano by telling a load of lies..its been pointed out to you several times but you continue to try and pretend it didn't happenI've no time, I confess, to study the amnesty international question, but who informs them, can you tell instead of accusing me to pretend it didn't happen ?
No, Ferryman, GA never covered up the torture of a woman, this is spreading a myth.
I don't know if Ms Tanner is honourable or not, I presume she is, but I'm sure she's not independent.
About her word, I wish she would have been clearer, for her own sake. The formal aspect of her rogatory interview speaks volumes about her state of mind. What one understands is that she thought the carrier was Mr Murat at the van time, but stopped thinking it at the rog time. I admit and understand that a lot of pressure was put on her and that she hardly could provide an untwisted answer.
So you accuse the Portuguese judiciary of lying?Of course not, why should they ?
I've no time, I confess, to study the amnesty international question, but who informs them, can you tell instead of accusing me to pretend it didn't happen ?
Amarals conviction is no myth..
It might not be, but is it relevant?
of course its relevant...amaral cannot claim the moral high ground as a man of honour...he is a proven liar
Yes, but it doesn't advance the case one iota, does it ?
This thread is about the libel trial...also if people think amaral is honest and believe his theories then that does affect the case
People can believe his theories without holding him up as a paragon of virtue.
It doesn't advance the libel case, either.
This thread is about the libel trial...also if people think amaral is honest and believe his theories then that does affect the case
I don't believe Amaral's theory.
I believe the PJs conclusion, does that affect it?
Do you refer to the archiving report which says there is no evidence against the McCanns
This is taken from the amnesty website...2012Gonçalo Amaral didn't push Mrs Cipriano down the stairs. He didn't even see someone pushing her down the stairs (see "the staircase" about the result of falling down stairs) without reacting. He didn't torture her nor saw someone do it.
Torture and other ill-treatment
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months’ and 27 months’ imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2012
Gonçalo Amaral didn't push Mrs Cipriano down the stairs. He didn't even see someone pushing her down the stairs (see "the staircase" about the result of falling down stairs) without reacting. He didn't torture her nor saw someone do it.
He signed a document he shouldn't have signed without inquiring.
You call that "criminal" because your agenda is to discredit and despise Mr Amaral, just as Mrs McCann did it in her book.
Do you hope that discredit on Mr Amaral will bring Madeleine back ?
Or do you hope discredit will make the Judge order Mr Amaral to pay a lot of money to Madeleine's family ?
Nope. I referred to the conclusions of the PJ, did I not make that clear?
the archiving report did not agree with the interim report ...
first I am not discrediting amaral...hes doing that himself
You need to read the amnesty statement again it didn't say he pushed her down the stairs..it says he lied about it...I prefer to trust the word of amnesty
What I am doing is putting things in context...amaral has a history of lying and therefore his word on other things cannot be trusted
The archiving report did not contradict the interim report either...
What I am doing is explaining once again that
"his word on other things cannot be trusted"
Is your opinion.
it actually stated that none of the evidence used to make the MCCaNNS arguidos was found to be valid
no its not...once a witness is found to be lying then his whole testimony is suspect
Did I mention witnesses?
'once a witness is found to be lying then his whole testimony is suspect'
And does that not apply for this...
'they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did'
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
It is a very diplomatic document.So diplomatic that it is obvious the PGR spent some time on certain sentences..
So diplomatic that it is obvious the PGR spent some time on certain sentences..
But I haven't read there that evidence leading to the request of assistance of a lawyer was found not to be valid. Inconclusive, but valid.
no evidence means no evidence..you need to accept itWill you accept this, from the police of your country ?
Will you accept this, from the police of your country ?
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Day-10 Report of events which occurred on the 27th November should be available very shortly.
I accept it because it is meaningless and said in a certain contextThe McCanns didn't share you view nor found the refusal insignificant since they wanted access to the LC Files.
The McCanns didn't share you view nor found the refusal insignificant since they wanted access to the LC Files.
Have you ever heard of suspects in any case in any country having or thnking they have the right to the police files in the case? That is what is bizarre....That's how they convinced people they were innocent. As innocents, it was normal. The more saturated the bizarre aspect, the better for their sake.
Similar to the Mccanns whilst arguidos going on television in the UK and giving their own private number for witnesses to come forward.....bizarre
And where does that leave the bbc and other stations??? For allowing it? Snd even calling it a new police number??? Duped by the mccanns obviously on that occasion....
Bizarre.........
Where did his sense of some entitlement come from???
the british police obviously thought they had no right thats why they snubbed them!!
not stupid.....
That's how they convinced people they were innocent. As innocents, it was normal. The more saturated the bizarre aspect, the better for their sake.
I know......Im surprised there wasnt some PT law they broke with this....About the LCFiles, it was Madeleine who asked to consult them, through Mrs Justice Hogg.
About the LCFiles, it was Madeleine who asked to consult them, through Mrs Justice Hogg.
About the LCFiles, it was Madeleine who asked to consult them, through Mrs Justice Hogg.
yes the ward of court business...seen through by both the police and the judge as a lame excuse.....to get police info...police are not stupidVery British, isn't it ?
they socked it back to them in one though...gave them the info they already had LOL.....the info THEY had sent into the police.....
Is Mrs Hogg some sort of ventriloquist psychic medium by any chance?
Very British, isn't it ?@)(++(*
Though Justice Hogg was their groupie.
@)(++(*About being very British to generously release the ... that had been given ?
Dont know what you mean...
About being very British to generously release the ... that had been given ?
It reminds me of the pile of medium letters and e-mails that Mr McCann wanted absolutely poor Ricardo Paiva to take with him and study !
Oh yes...I think I know what you mean now...its called taking the piss......God was of no help to Justice Hogg... She should have known.
@)(++(*
it can done with power and humour or guile and desperation...spot the difference.....
absolutely poor Ricardo Paiva
Poor and worse than poor ...
At the time it was the only way that the McCanns could advance the search for Madeleine but now SY are involved and they have effectivlely cleared the MCCanns, the LC files are of no importance
Effectively cleared?!!!!!!!
But the Portuguese haven't, and the disappearance of the little girl's case is still a Portuguese case!
In which they are still presumed innocent.
Everybody is presumed innocent until convicted, whether they are actually guilty or not.
Effectively cleared?!!!!!!!
But the Portuguese haven't, and the disappearance of the little girl's case is still a Portuguese case!
At the time it was the only way that the McCanns could advance the search for Madeleine but now SY are involved and they have effectivlely cleared the MCCanns, the LC files are of no importance
Effectively cleared?!!!!!!!
But the Portuguese haven't, and the disappearance of the little girl's case is still a Portuguese case!
Since when does the police say what the truth is ? This is strictly the job of Justice.
So why did Amaral come up with ' A verdade da mentira'? What compelling reason drove him to do it? And the truth about what lie?. And this from a man with a conviction for lying?
So Mr. 'Splendour of truth',
what makes you think Amaral got it wrong in this case, in terms of Madeleine's fate ?
Quote from Anne Guedes. "This is strictly the job of Justice." And I agree with her.
For obvious reasons it's a tricky case, Eleanor.
Goncalo Amaral doesn't seem to think so. But then it isn't his place to decide. This is why he should never have written his book.
Goncalo Amaral doesn't seem to think so. But then it isn't his place to decide. This is why he should never have written his book.
If Kate McCann can write her "version" of the truth, why can't Gonçalo Amaral write about the facts of the investigation? BTW, two other books were written about the case before it had even been shelved and the McCanns did nothing about it; probably because the authors did not make enough money to make suing them worthwhile.
If Kate McCann can write her "version" of the truth, why can't Gonçalo Amaral write about the facts of the investigation? BTW, two other books were written about the case before it had even been shelved and the McCanns did nothing about it; probably because the authors did not make enough money to make suing them worthwhile.
I repeat the full quote from Anne Guedes which I entirely agree with.
"Since when does the police say what the truth is ? This is strictly the job of Justice."
When the book was published he wasn't a policeman. Thus he had as much right to write about the case as anyone, and everyone does have that right.
We shall see, of course.
That's not what the case is about. Everyone does have that right. Trust me.
Not what the case is about? So what is it about?
Just about that particular book. It's not at all about the public interest in wishing to establish what happened to Madeleine.
Exactly. Amaral's right to decide what happened.
It's just his opinion, and whatever happens in that courtroom it has no impact at all on the right of other people to write about the case.
Though obviously there are restraints on what you can write, especially in the UK.
Something that Amaral failed to do. Which is the whole point.
But as I said, we shall see.
I think the other authors were careful not to make libellous statements wheras amaral was not so careful
On the contrary what does happen in that Courtroom is relevant Since when has the First Amendment and Article 10 of the European Convention of Rights given immunity to defamation?
Haven't you read his allegations? Allegations not facts.
What you love to call allegations are based on the FACTS of the investigation and the conclusions of the interim report of 10 September 2007, which is just as viable as the archiving report of 2008, despite what you would like to believe.
Except that one is a report based on police suspicions and the other is based on the actual legal position. Additionally, the latter report is of greater power in describing the truce position as it assessed the police case and found it wanting. This is just desperation on the part of anti McCann's.
Lyall
If it had don 't don't you think the PAG would have picked up on it? Assuming you think that is.
Did that report include any indication of an alternative?
I'm sure you'd appreciate like me Roger that no Attorney General (the senior law office in whatever country) would shut down a case without all due deliberation and consideration.
What is Montclair trying to suggest? That the Portuguese Attorney General dropped the judicial equivalent of a clanger?
As the judge has pointed out during the current libel trial, the archiving report (BTW, the case had not been closed, only shelved until better evidence was obtained) was not a conclusion nor a judgement and no one was exonerated. I believe that some of the witnesses for the McCanns were surprised to hear this since they had been told by the couple that they had been cleared.
they were cleared
they were cleared
THEY WERE NOT 'CLEARED'. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCESS. THEY ARE, WHOEVER, PRESUMED INNOCENT.
THEY WERE NOT 'CLEARED'. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCESS. THEY ARE, WHOEVER, PRESUMED INNOCENT.Just to put you in your place "presumed innocent " does not mean innocent. Even after a trial a verdict of not guilty does not mean innocent...no one can ever be declared innocent
Just to put you in your place "presumed innocent " does not mean innocent. Even after a trial a verdict of not guilty does not mean innocent...no one can ever be declared innocent
I know there is no such legal process..just try googling it...as there is no such legal process I can use the word in a non legal sense...therefore I am free to say they have been cleared and no one can contradict me
You hit the nail right on the head there. Of course people are considered completely innocent if somebody else is subsequently proven to have been responsible. We can all think of high profile cases where this is not the case, and compensation has been refused after release from prison.
In the McCann case it doesn't matter how many times you state the police have declared they aren't suspects, six and a half years later the public has yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest others were responsible. That's your problem.
The Portuguese Public Prosecutor contradicts you
When archiving the case he 'left on the table' Neglectful Homicide as a possibility ... after having pointed out that the McCanns failed to prove their innocence by not taking part in the reconstruction requested by police
even that isn't true...you obviously aren't quite as smart as you think you are...think "patsy"
the Mccanns have been cleared...get over it
He never said that...as anyone with any sense would understand..its impossible to prove innocence
try looking at the original Portuguese...not the translation
Patsy? Kensit? Palmer? Lee Harvey Oswald? >@@(*&) What do you mean?
they were clearedCross your fingers, they might be in the next AG report.
I don't speak/read Portuguese so there wouldn't be much point in that
Are you saying that the translation we all refer to is incorrect ? ... and that you have access to another one ? n you tell me
He never said that...as anyone with any sense would understand..its impossible to prove innocenceThis is why they should have claimed they wanted to reconstruct, as the AG suggested.
try looking at the original Portuguese...not the translation
ive pointed it out several times on this forum..ask Anne...university challenge beckonsCould you remind us what it was and your proposal of a new translation, please ?
@IchabodcraneNegligible homicide ? What's that ?
Sorry if you don't speak Portuguese but I do.
Negligible homicide? Hasn't this guy ever heard of the term' manslaughter'?
I know there is no such legal process..just try googling it...as there is no such legal process I can use the word in a non legal sense...therefore I am free to say they have been cleared and no one can contradict meAh ! Will you sleep better to-night ?
I know there is no such legal process..just try googling it...as there is no such legal process I can use the word in a non legal sense...therefore I am free to say they have been cleared and no one can contradict me
And equally I can say that they have not been.
yes you can...but you cannot contradict me as you have tried to do...saying they have been cleared is a reasonable observation...
I will sleep OK tonight but will you given your pathetic attempt to defend a bent cop?
lol SCORE......and were off...
He isnt bent hun not in the true sense of the word anyway but thanks for reminding me that Amaral was the only copper dealing with this case wasnt he??. OH no of course not silly me another took over from him and what was the result.
THEY SHUT THE CASE lol....
IF Amaral had never pointed at the McCanns no one would care about him. 8-)(--)
For THIRTY YEARS he worked as PJ he is experienced more so then you or I.
lol SCORE......and were off...It is extraordinary to observe the passion this man provokes in he- and she-posters. The more I look at him the more I think that he's the kind of person you don't notice !
He isnt bent hun not in the true sense of the word anyway but thanks for reminding me that Amaral was the only copper dealing with this case wasnt he??. OH no of course not silly me another took over from him and what was the result.
THEY SHUT THE CASE lol....
IF Amaral had never pointed at the McCanns no one would care about him. 8-)(--)
For THIRTY YEARS he worked as PJ he is experienced more so then you or I.
How old was he when he was removed from the case?Can't you find the year he was born on the Web ?
So Fraud and Perjury isn't Bent. I see.
When I read that I thought you were mentioning a new detective agency for the McCanns....oh no they were the Metodo 3 he he. 8(0(*
Where are the reports from last weeks libel trial..?
Look up to "Lisbon Libel Trial Daily Reports" or go straight to http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3038.0
When I read that I thought you were mentioning a new detective agency for the McCanns....oh no they were the Metodo 3 he he. 8(0(*
Except meaningless in law. All your statement means is "As they have not been charged, I believe that they are not guilty" which places them in the same position as any other person with opportunity and means- innocent until proven otherwise.Exactly.
Exactly.No. The AG report says the crime wasn't determined.
Innocent....
and as neither the PJ or the Met Police are even looking at the McCanns as potential suspects or persons then it is going to be a very, very, very long time before anyone ever proves them guilty.
That is in fact the reality, a reality that many are unwilling to face up to.
I don't think so.
P.S. Can the closing arguments introduce additions to the evidence?
Many thanks WS
8((()*/
I don' think one can second guess the judge's reasons. Suffice it to say that their input is not consider3ed relevant.
I believe they wanted to give evidence that could not be challenged by cross-examination, but to make a statement that could not be questioned.
Amaral has been refused aswell you know not just Kate and Gerry..
Yes, I know. I would hardly be fair to grant access to one side and not to the other.
Presumably because to do so would have been a pre-judgement of the case without hearing any of the evidence.
There is one thing I would love to know, and Jean-Pierre would probably be best qualified to answer.
At the outset, Snr Santos pleaded with the court to let proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Considering that Amaral is defending the right, not merely to say Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry caused her death, know she is dead, covered up the fact of her death, and launched a fraudulent "appeal" in Madeleine's name, why did not that astonishing request lead to an instant collapse of Amaral's defence?
There is one thing I would love to know, and Jean-Pierre would probably be best qualified to answer.
At the outset, Snr Santos pleaded with the court to let proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Considering that Amaral is defending the right, not merely to say Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry caused her death, know she is dead, covered up the fact of her death, and launched a fraudulent "appeal" in Madeleine's name, why did not that astonishing request lead to an instant collapse of Amaral's defence?
perhaps amarals lawyer hadn't thought things through>@@(*&)
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It wont really make a lot of difference to the McCanns if they lose...they have been as good as cleared now and no one really takes any notice of amaral with the papers calling him a disgraced cop. I amaral lose its a diffrent story.....
In what way have they been 'cleared'? I don't recall Madeleine being found or even seen since 2007?
The ag report say there was no evidence of any crime committed by them and SY say they are not suspects..thats cleared enough for me ..
It wont really make a lot of difference to the McCanns if they lose...they have been as good as cleared now and no one really takes any notice of amaral with the papers calling him a disgraced cop. I amaral lose its a diffrent story.....
In what way have they been 'cleared'? I don't recall Madeleine being found or even seen since 2007?
As far as the libel trial is concerned, if they lose again in Portugal the consequences for them could be far reaching as is an European Arrest Warrant.
I don' think one can second guess the judge's reasons. Suffice it to say that their input is not consider3ed relevant.
Can you elaborate on this John?
If this is indeed a risk, it begs once more the question of why on earth they embarked on this trial.
Oh they are deffo guilty. Its just a matter of what??
Oh they are deffo guilty. Its just a matter of what?? If Amaral wins and there is no reason why he shouldn't I can see another book and a film on the horizon.
amaral has had his 15 minutes of fame..hes finished imo
If this is so, why do you make such a big deal of it?
im not..you are
@)(++(* Hardly - I'm not fussed either way and I'm quite happy to await the judge's verdict.
A fundamental tenet of Amaral's thesis is that the McCanns drove Madeleine somewhere dead in the car.
That is disproved.
What else is there?
the trial is not about the polices theories, keep up.....
Can you elaborate on this John?
If this is indeed a risk, it begs once more the question of why on earth they embarked on this trial.
They were foolish to persue this case against Gonçalo Amaral while Madeleine remains a 'disappeared'. If she had been found alive they would have had a case but as it stands I don't believe they can prove a libel. Instead, all they have managed to do is to promote Amaral plc to an even greater extent.
As far as hindering the worldwide search is concerned I believe his book improved the chances of her being found.
Tend to agree with that and also how can they prove he libelled them when Madeleine just remains disappeared! and the case unsolved. And not forgetting the interim police report and the final legal summary....which concluded they have no idea of what crime was committed or by who albeit the PP did say something along the lines of it being difficult to see how the mccanns were involved, but still, no clearance or resolution
If it can be proved that key aspects of the investigation were incompetent (I believe it can be proved) then Amaral based his thesis on an incompetent investigation, rendering his claims untenable.
If it can be proved that key aspects of the investigation were incompetent (I believe it can be proved) then Amaral based his thesis on an incompetent investigation, rendering his claims untenable.
If it can be proved that key aspects of the investigation were incompetent (I believe it can be proved) then Amaral based his thesis on an incompetent investigation, rendering his claims untenable.
not important ...depends solely on Portuguese law...amaral accuses the mccanns of covering up an accident and disposing of the body...he has no proof...that is libel in uk courts ..is it libel in Portugal..perhaps...as I have said amaral has been hiding so perhaps it is
In what sense is it not important whether the investigation was competent or incompetent?
The McCanns have to disprove, or prove untrue, the claims of Amaral. If they can show that key aspects of the investigation were incompetently conducted, then they can show that there is no basis for believing true what Amaral claims.
In what sense is it not important whether the investigation was competent or incompetent?
The McCanns have to disprove, or prove untrue, the claims of Amaral. If they can show that key aspects of the investigation were incompetently conducted, then they can show that there is no basis for believing true what Amaral claims.
do the mccanns have to prove anything?...are you sure?
That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.
Too late for those pointless shenanigans
On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.
and where did you get this understanding
On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.
not at all..Ive no idea where you got that erroneous thinking from
You should reread my post 1288 with the link in...this is not a libel trial....at least not from everythng ive read
I can't find my sources just at the moment.
But it is the case that in most of the rest of the world, the onus in libel trials is the reverse of that in the UK.
No, I don't think it's a forum myth, Dave.
Re-read it.
You are fundamentally awry.
quote author=ferryman link=topic=2202.msg117234#msg117234 date=1388783656]
On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.
not at all..Ive no idea where you got that erroneous thinking from
You should reread my post 1288 with the link in...this is not a libel trial....at least not from everythng ive read
That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.
I think this has been overstated and has anyone supplied a source...no... murat recently won a case ...amaral has been running...things may well go the McCanns way..unfortunately amaral may well just be able to appeal. theres a portuguese poster on another forumwho is a devoted amaral supporter...shes been very quiet
This is US libel law, which I think Portuguese libel law pretty closely follows:
Abstract:
When the United States of America declared its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776, the fledgling country looked to distance itself from certain practices of the English Crown, particularly by rejecting a monarchical system. Problematically for this endeavor, though, the English common law tradition had been widely respected in the colonies. So, among the first legislative acts taken by many of the newly independent states was to adopt the already established, predictable, and structured body of English common law by way of a “reception statute,” which gave legal effect to the existing laws to the extent that they had not been rejected by the new government.The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, marking the end of the American Revolutionary War, with the United States of America officially and formally gaining its sovereignty and independence from Great Britain. Despite this separation, the legal traditions of the two countries remain very similar to this day. However, with respect to the common law of defamation, U.S. laws have evolved on a drastically different path.
In recent years, England’s centuries-old (and arguably antiquated) libel statute has caused significant hardship for those trying to exercise their right to free speech because of an increase in “libel tourism” — the practice of international forum shopping for defamation cases. Under English law, a libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent. This presumption has resulted in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and “libel tourists” who sue their critics in London. Much of American law is derived from the English common law tradition. One primary subject upon which the laws of England and the United States markedly diverge is defamation and, most interestingly, the burden of proof in such cases. The [current] amendments to [England's] defamation statute include defenses for truth, for matters of public interest, for “honest opinion,” and for privilege. The reformers’ efforts, however, are lacking as they have rejected amending the most obvious and troublesome cause of libel tourism — the “burden of proof” that rests on the defendant in libel cases in England.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: Defamation, Libel, United Kingdom, common law, reputation, burden of proof, slander, plaintiff, defendant, Reynolds Defense
This is US libel law, which I think Portuguese libel law pretty closely follows:
Abstract:
When the United States of America declared its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776, the fledgling country looked to distance itself from certain practices of the English Crown, particularly by rejecting a monarchical system. Problematically for this endeavor, though, the English common law tradition had been widely respected in the colonies. So, among the first legislative acts taken by many of the newly independent states was to adopt the already established, predictable, and structured body of English common law by way of a “reception statute,” which gave legal effect to the existing laws to the extent that they had not been rejected by the new government.The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, marking the end of the American Revolutionary War, with the United States of America officially and formally gaining its sovereignty and independence from Great Britain. Despite this separation, the legal traditions of the two countries remain very similar to this day. However, with respect to the common law of defamation, U.S. laws have evolved on a drastically different path.
In recent years, England’s centuries-old (and arguably antiquated) libel statute has caused significant hardship for those trying to exercise their right to free speech because of an increase in “libel tourism” — the practice of international forum shopping for defamation cases. Under English law, a libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent. This presumption has resulted in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and “libel tourists” who sue their critics in London. Much of American law is derived from the English common law tradition. One primary subject upon which the laws of England and the United States markedly diverge is defamation and, most interestingly, the burden of proof in such cases. The [current] amendments to [England's] defamation statute include defenses for truth, for matters of public interest, for “honest opinion,” and for privilege. The reformers’ efforts, however, are lacking as they have rejected amending the most obvious and troublesome cause of libel tourism — the “burden of proof” that rests on the defendant in libel cases in England.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: Defamation, Libel, United Kingdom, common law, reputation, burden of proof, slander, plaintiff, defendant, Reynolds Defense
jean-Pierre would certainly be able to give us the answer, and I know Carana is pretty good at locating primary sources for these types of discussion.
Only trouble with Carana is that she occasionally overlooks that we aren't all as linguistically gifted as her.
But she finds some good stuff.
Thank you, it was the UK "Honest Opinion" defence I had forgot about.
American libel law and libel per se...
Defamation per se[edit]
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.
Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[7]
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[8][9
So it looks as though the book would be libellous in the US
It's worth having a look on the ECHR site regarding Portugal. A lot of cases have ended up there in the last ten years or so in which the ECHR has found that freedom of expression has been violated by the Portuguese courts as a result of libel verdicts (convictions and civil verdicts) being made against defendants. Some of the defendants are quite high profile.
It seems clear that Portugal's courts are quite happy to find against defendants who have made false allegations of criminal activity. This case certainly won't be setting any precedents. The idea that freedom of expression is valued above all else is a false one. If anything, the balance seems to be the other way.
If jean pierre had any inklinkg on anything he wiuod pst but he kurks here for months and doesnt do so lol
As for carana, well, im sure she is much in the dark as you are ferryman re the so called libel trial
Keep dreaming.
That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.
The McCanns could both have testified at any time in pursuance of their case but chose not to as Oliveira would have torn them to shreds during cross examination. All those awkward questions which they have conveniently avoided so far. A 'no comment' response in a court of law would immediately attract a contempt of court charge. When they saw the case going pear shaped they decided they wanted to make a statement but the judge isn't having any of it. Good call juiza Maria de Melo e Castro.
That is correct ferryman, in Portugal the onus is on the complainant to prove that the defender libelled them. From everything I have read about the libel case I don't believe they have succeeded. Amaral claimed in his book that they disposed of Madeline's body following some sort of accident and that they invented an abduction scenario to cover this up. I cannot see how they could ever prove that he was wrong while Madeleine remains missing.
I believe they have been badly advised but that in itself is nothing new.
In Portugal as in the UK defamation is broadly defined as a statement that gives a false, damaging impression of someone to others. In verbal form it is called slander; in written form it is libel.
In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.
There are few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence, libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for any malicious litigant.
Unlike in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision rests at 1st instance with one judge.
In Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention has substituted the word “reputation” for the term “honour.”
Where are you gettings your facts from re the MCcanns have to prove there case..is it just what you have read on forums? From what I have read even in the usa the McCanns would not have to prove anything because the accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity
'accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity'
What are you on about ?
you don't know? posters have said that Portuguese libel law is similar to usa libel law ...
American libel law and libel per se...
Defamation per se[edit]
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.
Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[7]
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[8][9
Do you have any conception of how difficult it is to prove libel in Portugal, as Amaral himself found out ?
Perhaps because what was said about him was true...you do realise murat won his libel case
Was his libel case in Portugal ?
Don't you know?
Murat didn't actually win in a UK court - the newspapers apologised and agreed on a settlement before any judgement was made.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1534.0
You need to get your facts right before contradicting posters who have a lot more knowledge than you
In your dreams.
Do you enjoy trying to insult other posters ?
It's getting a trite boring and reveals your basic personality traits. >@@(*&)
oh dera another one...he won in a PORTUGUESE court
Indeed, which suggests that it might be easier to win in a Portuguese court - provided you have a valid case.
Could some kind person clarify something for me? Did the Mccanns ask to testify as everyone else did, or just submit a written statement and avoid cross examination?
I've read different things in which both have been claimed. Does anyone actually know?
Sorry if it's a stupid question, I haven't kept up over the festive period....
I think they wanted to submit a verbal statement, but avoid cross-examination.
Unfortunately, the truth is so obscured that it difficult to be certain of anything, which of course, is the prime aim of some posters.
Everything in the press say that they wish to testify.. Gerry actually turned up to testify but was refused...that makes things clear...posters I think have tried to spin the information to bash the mccannns by saying that they just want to give a written statement... I actually think they would have already given a written statement
I think they wanted to submit a verbal statement, but avoid cross-examination.
Thank you both for replying. Is it possible to avoid cross examination on the stand?
Unfortunately, the truth is so obscured that it difficult to be certain of anything, which of course, is the prime aim of some posters.
Is this just gossip from people trying to spread disinformation or do you have a source for this
I'm not sure where it comes from. As I say, the truth is obscured into uncertainty.
However, as they and Amaral have been refused a voice, it is really irrelevant what they wanted. The verdict will be forthcoming in the fullness of time.
Yes, I agree and it's my fault that we're discussing it. It doesn't matter what they or Dr Amaral wanted, it was just one of those little bits of conflicted information that I couldn't seem to get to the bottom of.
It really bugs me when there is disinformation. I don't think it helps anybody.
I have always thought what would there be to condemn the Mccanns for if we were able to peel away all the myths and disinformation...
I have always thought what would there be to condemn the Mccanns for if we were able to peel away all the myths and disinformation...
as I have said before..posters are welcome to be rude ..abusive...whatever towards me...I don't care ...this is not the real world..in the real world I am admired and loved.
8(0(*
I think they wanted to submit a verbal statement, but avoid cross-examination.
Unfortunately, the truth is so obscured that it difficult to be certain of anything, which of course, is the prime aim of some posters.
Where are you gettings your facts from re the MCcanns have to prove there case..is it just what you have read on forums? From what I have read even in the usa the McCanns would not have to prove anything because the accusations are so serious alleging criminal activity
I'm afraid that John is right and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case and that they have suffered damages.
Returning from holiday minus 1 child. That'll do for me.
By the Mccanns. 8)--)) 8)-)))
That's much to vague an answer...what do you mean prove their case...prove what...prove that their reputation has been damaged...that wouldn't be very difficult
Their reputation has been shot at for a long time. Might be difficult to prove who caused the damage and to what extent.
I'm afraid that John is right and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case and that they have suffered damages.
He hasn't conceded anything throughout the trial so that may just be wishful thinking on your part. Not that what you think will make any difference to the result.
as I have said before...just like the needhams
No , family, friends clients...pretty well everyone really...don't know the McCanns at all, but my son was taught by Gerry at Leicester when he studied medicine. He told me Gerry was really well liked.
Everyone really. @)(++(*
Personal bias.
I presume you have proof Gerry was doing some teaching at Leicester ?
im looking at the overall picture and for me it looks bad for amaral
Lets hope he wasn't teaching a module on child care.
Everyone really. @)(++(*Gerry is a consultant cardiologist...he teaches the undergraduates and post graduates
Personal bias.
I presume you have proof Gerry was doing some teaching at Leicester ?
Gerry is a consultant cardiologist...he teaches the undergraduates and post graduates
Interesting you refer to your son.
I seem to remember a short while ago in a post, that you were reading your son a bedtime story. >@@(*&)
would it be possible for me to have more than one son
You referred to the singular not plural.
Query removed.
I think this only applies to The Plaintiff and The Defendant. They aren't actual witnesses.
Thanks Eleanor. So what we have in fact is the plaintiff and the defender being permitted to present impact statements.
Not on this occasion as it is only allowed by permission of The Judge, which she has refused.
Apparently, prior to July when The Law was changed, it wasn't allowed at all.
Is there a right of appeal? If so, I fear this case will go on for ever.
Whatever the true position on the burden of proof, there are key lies of Amaral's that can be disproved:
Madeleine was never driven anywhere in the car (dead or alive)
Mark Harrison did not switch the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead. He was handed a brief to consider that Madeleine had been "murdered" and worked to it.
In reaching his "thesis" that Gerry "hid" Madeleine's body on the beach, Amaral plagiarised the proper detective work of Mark Harrison (who, himself, never said any such thing).
If the McCanns have Stuart Prior's report, disproving that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest after being contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results ought to be a doddle.
Disproving the "frozen cadaver remains from the boot of the car" comment is as easy as reading John Lowe's forensic report.
Difficult to know how Grime's deception over presentation of the dogs and incompetent handling of them will affect things. The judges may view it that Amaral couldn't reasonably be expected to understand principles of dog handling, even though PJ Inspector Dias had a good grasp of the subject.
Still, Amaral's claim in his book that Eddie had no hesitation in singling out the Renault is patently false.
There never was a "preliminary report", only an e-mail from John Lowe to Stuart Prior explaining a result from the one and only report.
I'm sure there's much more ...
The Judge must have read the book and be conversant with what transpired. She also knows that Amaral has no proof to support his claims.
So it appears to me to be a question of whether or not Amaral had a right to voice these accusations.
The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record. Did he have a right to do this?
Damages for Distress are more difficult to define. But if Amaral is found to have Defamed The McCanns and caused them Distress then it is only proper that he should not be allowed to benefit financially. This is why The McCanns are looking for the profit from Amaral's endeavours.
Whether or not they will get it remains to be seen.
The Judge must have read the book and be conversant with what transpired. She also knows that Amaral has no proof to support his claims.
So it appears to me to be a question of whether or not Amaral had a right to voice these accusations.
The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record. Did he have a right to do this?
Damages for Distress are more difficult to define. But if Amaral is found to have Defamed The McCanns and caused them Distress then it is only proper that he should not be allowed to benefit financially. This is why The McCanns are looking for the profit from Amaral's endeavours.
Whether or not they will get it remains to be seen.
"The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record"
Where is it recorded ?
It it has not been established in court that Amaral lied ... indeed, the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all in that regard
"The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record"
Where is it recorded ?
It it has not been established in court that Amaral lied ... indeed, the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all in that regard
I must be getting confused here?
Amral's book has already been allowed in Portugal as the McCann's challenge to it failed.
This trial is trying determine if the book adversely affected the search for Madeleine?
I must be getting confused here?
Amral's book has already been allowed in Portugal as the McCann's challenge to it failed.
This trial is trying determine if the book adversely affected the search for Madeleine?
In his Book, on Television and in Interviews he said things that he cannot prove. He also stated some things that are proven to be incorrect.
The trial isn't about determining whether or not the search was hindered. It's about determining the damage caused to the McCanns
"proven to be incorrect" where ?
Certainly not in court .... which is the only place that matters to the Judge
"The fact that Amaral bent the truth and sometimes lied is a matter of record"
Where is it recorded ?
It it has not been established in court that Amaral lied ... indeed, the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all in that regard
In his book, on television and in newspapers. These things have been studied in Court.
That is not correct Victoria
One of the claims on which the McCanns' case hinges is that Amaral's book damaged 'the search' for Madeleine
What do you mean, "These things have been studied in court" ?
That claim is entirely unevidenced and pure speculation
I'd like to see you provide proof that the case 'hinges' on the search being hindered by the book. This may have been a point that was raised, but the case does not hinge upon it. What cause of action would that be, exactly?
But none of this was brought up by the McCanns' lawyer during the trial
In fact, as far as I can see, the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all that Amaral had 'lied'
The entire prosecution rested on the claim that Amaral's book had damaged the McCanns and damaged 'the search' for Madeleine
You don't seriously think that is what is in the public domain consists of what the whole of the case rests on?
Do you?
Still confused.
We have a book that has been tested in a court of law and found to be Ok and the McCanns are now suing based on the contents?
Still confused.
We have a book that has been tested in a court of law and found to be Ok and the McCanns are now suing based on the contents?
Still confused.
We have a book that has been tested in a court of law and found to be Ok and the McCanns are now suing based on the contents?
And the effects on them, and "the search"....see here some of the accusations
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/27JULY9/MIRROR_12_07_09.htm
Could some kind person clarify something for me? Did the Mccanns ask to testify as everyone else did, or just submit a written statement and avoid cross examination?
I've read different things in which both have been claimed. Does anyone actually know?
Sorry if it's a stupid question, I haven't kept up over the festive period....
And the effects on them, and "the search"....see here some of the accusations
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/27JULY9/MIRROR_12_07_09.htm
But none of this was brought up by the McCanns' lawyer during the trial
In fact, as far as I can see, the McCanns' lawyer offered no evidence at all that Amaral had 'lied'
The entire prosecution rested on the claim that Amaral's book had damaged the McCanns and damaged 'the search' for Madeleine
Still confused.
We have a book that has been tested in a court of law and found to be Ok and the McCanns are now suing based on the contents?
My understanding is that the book ban was able to be overturned because libel could not be established, because no libel case had taken place to prove it. Therefore until libel is established Amarals right to freedom of expression has to be upheld. Hence the present case.
My understanding is that the book ban was able to be overturned because libel could not be established, because no libel case had taken place to prove it. Therefore until libel is established Amarals right to freedom of expression has to be upheld. Hence the present case.
The McCanns only reason for bringing a libel case against Mr Amaral and the others was to shut them up. Libel cases in Portugal are seen as an easy option and don't cost that much. Even if they lose they wont have to pay the legal fees of the opposition as they do in the UK. This whole charade was nothing more than a delaying tactic whilst Scotland Yard were brought onside. The outcome in this case is all but decided, little wonder the judge is uninterested in the mutterings from Amaral or the McCanns.
The McCanns only reason for bringing a libel case against Mr Amaral and the others was to shut them up. Libel cases in Portugal are seen as an easy option and don't cost that much. You only require to make a case that your honour has been offended. Even if they lose they wont have to pay the legal fees of the opposition as they do in the UK. This whole charade was nothing more than a delaying tactic whilst Scotland Yard were brought onside. The outcome in this case is all but decided, little wonder the judge is uninterested in the mutterings from Amaral or the McCanns.
I wonder if you'd feel the same if it was YOU being lied about in a book and being accused of heinous crimes which you knew you had not committed.
Would you just sit back and do nothing?
If it wasn't for Amaral the trial would probably have been over and done with ages ago. He is the one who used delaying tactics not the McCanns.
And if someone broadcast untrue words of a crime you commited against your child you would do nothing? Yeah of course.
Mccanns furious and seething according to Jerry Lawton at the Daily Star....cant imagine this is true.....Kate Mccann never applied to speak anyway.....only Gerry...and he probably inew ages ago it wasnt going to happen
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/358729/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-left-furious-after-court-gags-them-from-giving-evidence
Mccanns furious and seething according to Jerry Lawton at the Daily Star....cant imagine this is true.....Kate Mccann never applied to speak anyway.....only Gerry...and he probably inew ages ago it wasnt going to happen
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/358729/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-left-furious-after-court-gags-them-from-giving-evidence
That will be the same Jerry Lawton who referred to Euclides Monteiro as a monster in his article about tractorman. He later tried to get out of it by blaming his editor for using the term.
A perfect example of the press sensationalising everything - and with no conscience whatsoever.
Since when does 'disappointed' equate to 'furious' and 'seething.'
Profit before people every time.
Problem is here you dont know which story is right or wrong...in any case, I think you are wrong about profits, I doubt people in their millions buy a certain paper cos Maddie is on the front page any more, if anything, they probably avoid it unless its their regular daily. Well, also its only Saturday, tomorrow no dubt wil be some other headline and Monday too and Tuesday....I bet Lord Lucan has been now overshadowed in the annals of history
Papers are owned by very rich, shrewd businessmen...Maddies face is on the front of the paper because it sells..if it didn't it wouldn't be there ..simple
I will concur with that. Daily Express garbage headlines like Madeline found in Turkey and Madeleine found in Ireland will always attract attention. I do feel for the parents when this shite is published as genuine.
I dont...they never once came out and stood up for people being pursued or lambasted by the press as involved, or suspected of being, alot of them totally innocent people, for years this has gone on.....or having to take a bloody dna test to prove they werent madeleine!!!! long after they had said its not her....etc etc....the mccnns have never stood up for the underdog in this case nd there have been many.....
I dont...they never once came out and stood up for people being pursued or lambasted by the press as involved, or suspected of being, alot of them totally innocent people, for years this has gone on.....or having to take a bloody dna test to prove they werent madeleine!!!! long after they had said its not her....etc etc....the mccnns have never stood up for the underdog in this case nd there have been many.....for them the more suspects the merrier! Innocent or not!!
It is no surprise from most of your posts that you have no sympathy for the victims of this crime but fortunately most of the british public seem to support them
Yep, and they never complained about the xenophobia either.
Nope....in fact they have never complained about any injustices done to others......only whinged on about themselves......to make things worse they have hijacked other cases....
I really think amaral is losing the case...the final clue being the number of lawyers he has used...if the case is so simple for him why so many lawyers...the most obvious reason is that each one has told him he has no case and should admit defeat..
Why should he.
Ity is clearly the Mccanns fearing the outcome.
hes been running away from it for years...wait and see...he will lose
hes been running away from it for years...wait and see...he will lose
Of course Amaral will lose. He did Defame The McCanns and he did cause them added Distress. All without a scrap of proof.
As to running away, the Mccanns have done that for years.
As to the trial outcome we shall see, plus the appeals. 8)-)))
the appeals certainly...amaral will almost certainly appeal...
So will the Mccanns when they lose ?
you showed yesterday you have little knowledge of whats happening....the MccAnns wont lose...its obvious
Oh dear, insults again.
An indication of your profession. @)(++(*
As to the case, we shall see in due course.
Red, thank you for your reply (post 1404) I thought you might know :-D
Everything I've read makes me think that Dr Amaral will win, but my own beliefs are probably effecting that.
Davel, you've given enough hints to your profession for even me to work it out and we've established that I'm no detective :-D
Red, thank you for your reply (post 1404) I thought you might know :-D
Everything I've read makes me think that Dr Amaral will win, but my own beliefs are probably effecting that.
Davel, you've given enough hints to your profession for even me to work it out and we've established that I'm no detective :-D
That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.
Has what you've read come from an accurate, reliable, unbiased source though? If not, then prepare to be disappointed.
I believe that the source is accurate, yes. I don't think I'd be disappointed by an outcome that I haven't predicted. More than anything I'm interested in how people can have the same information and yet view it so differently.
It's almost a large social experiment. To put it bluntly, one 'side' is completely blinded by their own prejudices. I believe that it's those supporting the Mccanns who are wrong, they believe that it's me. I'll put my money on the table now and say that I trust the judge to make a decision based on the facts. I think that she'll make the right call and I won't complain about the outcome.
Everything I've seen leads me to believe that the Mccanns have no case. None. Their pretendy psychologist was proof of that. Now, other people who have seen the exact same information have come to the exact opposite conclusion. One of us is deluded. I'm genuinely curious to see which of us it is.
I'll also say that I completely trust Anne's documentation of events and if I have made the wrong call about the outcome, I accept that it is my own bias blinding me and no reflection on her work at all. I am very grateful for all of Anne's hard work! Thank you Anne.
Is this what you're looking for, Ferryman?
European Judicial Network (Civil and commercial matters)
Burden of proof
I. THE BURDEN OF PROOF
1.
a) What are the rules concerning the burden of proof?
The rules concerning the burden of proof seek to define the person involved in a case who has to demonstrate certain facts so that the validity of the argument presented by that person in court can be assessed.
In this area, the general criterion is the following: it is up to the person who invokes a right to provide proof to the court of the facts which give rise to such a right, or rather, the facts which normally produce such a right.
The opposing party must show that abnormal events have occurred which set aside or exclude the effectiveness of the factors generating the right in question.
Thus it is up to the party against whom the right is invoked to demonstrate facts impeding, modifying or terminating the right. Impeding facts are those which act as obstacles to the effective creation of the right. Modifying rights are those which alter the scope of the right which has been established. Terminating facts are those which, after the right has been established as valid, cause it to lapse..
In case of doubt the facts must be considered as constitutive and, consequently, proving them must be the responsibility of the party coming to court to exercise the right in question.
In cases where one party is not seeking a judgment against the other party but merely wishes the court to establish the non-existence of a right or a fact, it is up to the defendant (the party against whom the case has been brought) to prove the elements constituting the right which is being claimed.
TopTop
In court actions which must be brought within a certain time limit following the date on which the plaintiff (the party initiating the action) has become aware of a certain fact, it is up to the defendant to prove that this time limit has already expired, unless there is another solution especially established by law.
If the right invoked by the plaintiff is subject to a suspensive condition (an uncertain event in the future on whose occurrence the parties have made the effects of the legal transaction dependent) or to an initial deadline (the moment in time after which the right may arise) , it is up to the applicant to prove that the condition has been met or that the initial deadline has been passed; if the right is subject to a termination condition (an uncertain event in the future on whose occurrence the parties have made the cessation of the effects of the legal transaction dependent) or to a final deadline (moment in time after which the right lapses) , it is up to the defendant to prove that the condition has been met or that the final deadline has been passed.
The above rules are reversed when there is a legal presumption (consequence or inference which the law deduces from a known fact to establish an unknown one) , exemption or release from the obligation to comply with the above rules for the production of proof, or a valid agreement to that effect, when the opposing party has, culpably, made it impossible for the proof to be presented by the party which should produce it, and, in general, whenever the law so determines.
An agreement to reverse the burden of proof is invalid where an inalienable right is involved (one which a party cannot waive merely by making a statement that it wishes to do so) or where it might make it excessively difficult for one of the parties to exercise the right. Similarly, an agreement to exclude any legal mode of proof or to allow a mode of proof other than that provided for by law is also invalid. If the decisions arising from the law in relation to the proof are based on reasons of public policy, such agreements are invalid under all circumstances.
TopTop
When proof is presented by the party on which the burden of demonstrating a particular fact falls, the opposing party can present counter-evidence with a view to raising doubts or uncertainties in the mind of the person judging the reality of the event which it is sought to establish. If there is sufficient doubt, then the decision must go against the party which had the obligation to prove the fact in question.
If there is any doubt on who has the burden of proof, it should lie with the party which stands to benefit from the fact.
b) Are there rules which exempt certain facts from the burden of proof? In which cases? Is it possible to rebut these presumptions by producing evidence?
Yes, there are such rules.
Firstly, proof is not required for well-known facts, in other words those of public knowledge.
In the same manner, a party which has a legal presumption (defined above) in its favour does not need to prove the presumed fact.
As a rule, legal presumptions can be rebutted, that is, refuted by the presentation of counter proof. There are, however, situations in which the law does not allow rebuttal of the presumption. This is the case, for example, when the law considers as always acting in bad faith any third party that acquires a right after falsification has been established (situations where it is sought to demonstrate that, by an agreement between the parties in a certain transaction, and with the purpose of deceiving third parties, there was a discrepancy between the declared transaction and the real intention of the declaring party)
With regard to the presumptions which can be opposed by proof to the contrary, there are several types envisaged by law. The following examples can be given:
(...)
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_por_en.htm
In the Murat v. CdaM appeal, it seems that there was a legal presumption in his favour. From what I can gather (happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood), this was because the editor/publisher of a press /media outlet has a certain number of duties, thereby reversing the burden of proof.
Processo:
2768/10.7TVLSB.L1-2
Relator: EZAGÜY MARTINS
Descritores: DIREITO AO BOM NOME
LIBERDADE DE IMPRENSA
INTERESSE PÚBLICO
RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL
COMPARTICIPAÇÃO
RESPONSABILIDADE SOLIDÁRIA
PRESUNÇÃO LEGAL
Nº do Documento: RL
Data do Acordão: 18/04/2013
Votação: UNANIMIDADE
Texto Parcial: S
Meio Processual: APELAÇÃO
Decisão: PARCIAL PROCEDÊNCIA I - Em matéria de responsabilidade civil, por ofensa do crédito e do bom nome, o ónus da prova cabe ao lesado, limitado à existência das imputações ofensivas dos bens em causa.
II - O facto de determinadas informações sobre a vida privada dos cidadãos suscitarem o interesse do público em termos fácticos, não significa que a sua divulgação seja de interesse público em termos normativos.
III - Não é de tal interesse normativo a urdidura de “factos”, insinuações, associações, juízos conclusivos e, ou, conjeturais, atribuindo ao A. uma personalidade doentia, da área não só da pedofilia como até da zooerastia, compatível com a prática de ilícito criminal relacionado com o desaparecimento de infortunada criança.
IV - O objetivo de aumento de tiragens não pode obnubilar os deveres jornalísticos, aliás de consagração estatutária, de respeito pela presunção de inocência, de não recolha de declarações ou imagens que atinjam a dignidade das pessoas, bem como de publicação de notícias que suscitem discriminação.
V - Na produção do mesmo dano podem comparticipar, por múltiplas formas, várias pessoas, e podendo a comparticipação verificar-se logo em relação à mesma causa do dano, ela “pode resultar ainda, não da colaboração na mesma causa do dano, mas da concorrência de duas ou mais causas.
VI - Nestas hipóteses de concurso real de causas do mesmo dano, em face do lesado, quer haja subsequência (adequada) de causas, quer haja causas cumulativas ou mera coincidência de causas de natureza distinta, qualquer dos responsáveis é obrigado a reparar todo o dano.
VII - A imputação ao diretor de uma publicação periódica, do conteúdo que resulta da própria titularidade e exercício da função e dos inerentes deveres de conhecimento, integra uma presunção legal.
VIII - Esta presunção legal isenta o autor-lesado do ónus da prova do facto, ou seja, o conhecimento, a aceitação e a imputação da publicação, por parte do diretor, a que a presunção conduz.
IX - O normativo do artigo 29º, n.º 2, da Lei da Imprensa, não determina como condição da efectivação da responsabilidade da proprietária da publicação, que o director da mesma seja demandado, conjuntamente com aquela.
(Sumário do Relator)
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument
I believe that the source is accurate, yes. I don't think I'd be disappointed by an outcome that I haven't predicted. More than anything I'm interested in how people can have the same information and yet view it so differently.
It's almost a large social experiment. To put it bluntly, one 'side' is completely blinded by their own prejudices. I believe that it's those supporting the Mccanns who are wrong, they believe that it's me. I'll put my money on the table now and say that I trust the judge to make a decision based on the facts. I think that she'll make the right call and I won't complain about the outcome.
Everything I've seen leads me to believe that the Mccanns have no case. None. Their pretendy psychologist was proof of that. Now, other people who have seen the exact same information have come to the exact opposite conclusion. One of us is deluded. I'm genuinely curious to see which of us it is.
I'll also say that I completely trust Anne's documentation of events and if I have made the wrong call about the outcome, I accept that it is my own bias blinding me and no reflection on her work at all. I am very grateful for all of Anne's hard work! Thank you Anne.
This sounds possible since the accusations are of a Criminal Nature.
The McCanns filed a civil libel case not a criminal one because they were more interested in compensation.
As for the outcome, we can all say what we want right now but, as one Portuguese footballer said, "Prognósticos só no fim do jogo" (prognostics only at the end of the game). Although I hope that Gonçalo Amaral wins and I believe that the McCanns failed to prove their case, it could go either way, it all depends on the judge. According to people I know who attended the hearings in 2010 and these latest ones, this judge seems much more on her toes and knows the details of the case and the investigation.
If Gonçalo Amaral did not believe that he was right I doubt very much that he would have gone this far in the defense of freedom of speech and opinion.
The McCanns filed a civil libel case not a criminal one because they were more interested in compensation.
As for the outcome, we can all say what we want right now but, as one Portuguese footballer said, "Prognósticos só no fim do jogo" (prognostics only at the end of the game). Although I hope that Gonçalo Amaral wins and I believe that the McCanns failed to prove their case, it could go either way, it all depends on the judge. According to people I know who attended the hearings in 2010 and these latest ones, this judge seems much more on her toes and knows the details of the case and the investigation.
If Gonçalo Amaral did not believe that he was right I doubt very much that he would have gone this far in the defense of freedom of speech and opinion.
Thank you. And I must say that this thought also crossed my mind, being Civil rather than Criminal.
Also thank you for your information being totally unbiased.
I expect that Amaral does believe that he is right. But there is a large element of profit in what he has done.
The question is, did he have a right to do this?
Do you mean moral or legal right?
Am I missing something here? 'twas my understanding there are 4 defendants in this case although Amaral would seem to be presented as the bogey man in chief.
Your new here so I will explain, everything is Amarals fault.
Am I missing something here? 'twas my understanding there are 4 defendants in this case although Amaral would seem to be presented as the bogey man in chief.
Yes, even down to the poor weather that fateful week.
Amaral kicked it all off. He made the accusations and the rest of them ran with it.
Yes & it was Amaral & Cristovao who snatched Maddie.
I think you are wrong about the prejuduices...its simple understanding of the evidence...did the mccanna lie in their statements..I say no...did they lie about the shutters ...I say no....did the dogs prove a cadaver had been present..I say no...has their behavior since shown them to be guilty...no
then theres the fact theyve never been arrested and the ag report said there was no evidence they had committed any crime...
i was right about the ST article, when most on here accepted it ...and Im right about the Mccanns
I think you all missed the point !
This is the critical part of this document...in us law it is called libel per se and includes accusations of a criminal nature,which reverses the burden of proof...if portuguese law is the same then it is ammaral who has to prove...the truth is none of us know
Not really. We all have different points. But the other Defendants will win or lose along with Amaral. The only difference is that they can better afford to lose.
But when push comes to shove it was the accusations of Amaral that motivated the whole their money making exercise.
Not really. We all have different points. But the other Defendants will win or lose along with Amaral. The only difference is that they can better afford to lose.
But when push comes to shove it was the accusations of Amaral that motivated the whole their money making exercise.
It seems hugely complex (I'm not a lawyer).
My understanding is that normally, in Portuguese civil and commercial litigation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
Upon appeal, whether the original ruling was upheld or overturned, the burden of proof in the Murat case was shifted to the media. As I understand the ruling, the media have both rights and duties. In his case, the (unfulfilled) duties of the media prevailed.
There are similarities, but also differences, between the two cases.
In some respect in the UK at least he would be in a stronger position than the others as it was his Opinion.
Its probably quite simple but we dont know in what situations the burden of proof is changed...that would perhaps give us the answer
In some respect in the UK at least he would be in a stronger position than the others as it was his Opinion.
They are film-makers and publishers - of course they are out to make money. Do you think Corner's film making company didn't make money out of the work they did?
So you think that these companies have a right to make money from Libel, albeit committed by someone else?
Amaral kicked it all off. He made the accusations and the rest of them ran with it.
As far as I can work out, the burden of proof can be reversed if there is a legal presumption. What that actually means in PT law and whether it would apply in the McCann case is anyone's guess.
I wasn't aware of this until the Murat judgement.
Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.
So you think that these companies have a right to make money from Libel, albeit committed by someone else?
Libel is always only an opinion.
Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.
So The Investigation wrote the book, did it?
Goncalo Amaral authored a book, littered with falsehoods that lower reputation, for which he has sole and exclusive (ir)responsibility.
I've pointed out before and happily repeat that if Amaral had let everything lie within the process, he'd be fine.
Kate's father cannot touch Tavares Almeida for his falsehood that Mr Healey confirmed that the McCanns sedated their children, for example, because Almeida has never repeated that falsehood outside the process.
There is no Legal Presumption with The McCanns, beyond the fact that they are innocent in Law. As there was no Legal Presumption with Robert Murat.
Although perhaps this is not what you meant.
Not according to Mr Tugendhat. You'll remember what he said I think.
There are several parties being sued in this case.
Does Amaral count as "press/media" as an author, or as a private citizen expressing his views? Do his views count as a common citizen or as someone closely involved in the case at the time as coordinator of the investigation?
What legal differences may there be between his book, the documentary, his numerous interviews (audiovisual or written press)? Does he have the same responsibility in each or not?
Ha ha. There is the rub. Personally, I think that they others are more culpable. But then I also believe that if he had left it with his book then it would never have gone this far.
But he just went on and on, encouraged by other outlets, until finally The McCanns had to do something.
And it still wont prove that hes right at the end of day,its only his opinion we all have them after all 8(0(*
Well Tuesday is a significant day and on cue in advance the silly stories start. In a novel by Gavin Lyall the hero says "I knew he would try to hit me before he did".
I don't think Tuesday is significant..may not even be the last day...then the verdict could be another monthOh! I don't dispute there are plenty of legs left in this. My point is that the tactics are so predictable. I wouldn't pay the orchestrator in washers.
Oh! I don't dispute there are plenty of legs left in this. My point is that the tactics are so predictable. I wouldn't pay the orchestrator in washers.
Hi there, care to share who these orchestrators are?
I don't know a name! Being a subscriber to Al Capone's theory I believe there is an orchestrator.
Al Capone's theory: "once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action". Sometimes incorrectly attributed to Ian Fleming.
It seems every time something that maybe iffy is about to happen the silly stories start and fill the English press.
Of course I could be wrong.
The new Civil Procedure Code as now applies in Portugal
The new Civil Procedure Code introduces a new means of evidence - the declarations by a party - in which the party itself [i.e. the McCanns and/or Gonçalo Amaral], on its own initiative, may request, until the start of oral allegations at first instance [the closing arguments], to make a statement about facts in which the party intervened personally or of which the party has direct knowledge. The party that makes a statement is subject to the duty of cooperation and truth, which means that it must reply to everything that is asked, to submit to any necessary inspections and to provide everything that is requested from the party. The questioning of the party that makes a statement is led by the Judge, and the lawyers may only ask for clarifications. If, in its statements, the party confesses to any fact, that confession is valued in the files and with due effects, which is to say it is irreversible and has full probative force [it is considered evidence]. In the absence of a confession, the statements by the party are freely valued by the Court.
The hearing due to take place in Lisbon later this morning has been postponed while judge considers legal arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Let's hope the McCann legal team have something very clever in store this week, because the facebook webmaster just claimed that it's the UK press who have hampered the search.
Bog standard delaying tactics. Reeks of desperation on Amaral's part.
I'm just waiting for the claims that he's finally revealing his Ace! @)(++(*
Bog standard delaying tactics. Reeks of desperation on Amaral's part.
I'm just waiting for the claims that he's finally revealing his Ace! @)(++(*
The only desperation visible has been the mccanns court case falling apart. 8((()*/
The only desperation visible has been the mccanns court case falling apart. 8((()*/
You cannot possibly know this. Two entirely different types of witnesses. But to me The Judge was much more sceptical about Amaral's witnesses. All good buddies bar one, and even he had a dubious interest.
Personally, I have no idea of what the final outcome will be. But in the end it is all to do with whether or not Amaral had a right to say what he did, repeatedly.
You cannot possibly know this. Two entirely different types of witnesses. But to me The Judge was much more sceptical about Amaral's witnesses. All good buddies bar one, and even he had a dubious interest.
Personally, I have no idea of what the final outcome will be. But in the end it is all to do with whether or not Amaral had a right to say what he did, repeatedly.
So why were the Mccanns so desperate to make witness statements ?
As to the outcome of the case, it won't be the end.
Then come the appeals.
Who said that The McCanns were desperate? Amaral appears to be the one who is using delaying tactics again.
Who said that The McCanns were desperate? Amaral appears to be the one who is using delaying tactics again.
I think you might find that that is not true.
I have heard that the there is some legal query, related to Madeleine being a Ward of Court which is awaiting clarification.
As I understand it the Supreme Court in Portugal has already ruled Dr Amaral had that right and had not infringed the McCann's rights when the McCann's failed in their final bid to have his book banned from sale. You may or may not trawl around the international press but there are suggestions there that the McCann's tried to settle out of court but the defendants wouldn't have any of it. Hence the delay from Jan 2013 to Sept 2013. Odd action for a plaintiff surely?
You are obviously not as well versed as you think you are. There was never any proof that The McCanns tried to settle. Only that they as Plaintiffs are the only ones who can actually ask for a stay when The Defence ask for it.
The Libel Trial is ongoing at the moment, so either The Portuguese Court is daft, or The Injunction had nothing to do with Libel.
Actually, The Injunction was an interim thing to limit the damage done to the search for Madeleine while they all staggered through the delaying tactics from The Defence, and yet again today.
Amaral's Sequestered Assets must be On Deposit somewhere, and therefor gaining Interest. So who has a right to The Interest?
Perhaps Montclair can answer that. Four years of Interest could be quite considerable.
You are obviously not as well versed as you think you are. There was never any proof that The McCanns tried to settle. Only that they as Plaintiffs are the only ones who can actually ask for a stay when The Defence ask for it.
The Libel Trial is ongoing at the moment, so either The Portuguese Court is daft, or The Injunction had nothing to do with Libel.
Actually, The Injunction was an interim thing to limit the damage done to the search for Madeleine while they all staggered through the delaying tactics from The Defence, and yet again today.
Amaral's Sequestered Assets must be On Deposit somewhere, and therefor gaining Interest. So who has a right to The Interest?
Perhaps Montclair can answer that. Four years of Interest could be quite considerable.
Accoding to Jerry Lawton - Twitter "libel trial adjourned to date to be fixed after Goncalo Amaral's lawyers submitted more documents at last minute"
Interesting.
Discourteous, but within the rules. A common delaying tactic by a reluctant defendant.
Why delay? I can't see any benefit for Dr Amaral in delaying things. I can just about see a benefit for the Mccanns (should the reports about sy having found their man be true, delaying until an arrest would be helpful for them).
The impression I have of this judge is that she doesn't suffer fools gladly, so I imagine there must have been a good reason for the delay. I can't think that she would've been terribly impressed with the lawyers presenting something at this late stage.
All supposition on my part obviously. Just musing aloud....
You are obviously not as well versed as you think you are. There was never any proof that The McCanns tried to settle. Only that they as Plaintiffs are the only ones who can actually ask for a stay when The Defence ask for it.I don't recall suggesting that I think I am well versed. Nor do I recall using the word proof. I couldn't hope to aspire to level of expertise in this forum but are you saying that the Supreme Court didn't rule in favour of Dr Amaral with respect to publication of his book?
The Libel Trial is ongoing at the moment, so either The Portuguese Court is daft, or The Injunction had nothing to do with Libel.
Actually, The Injunction was an interim thing to limit the damage done to the search for Madeleine while they all staggered through the delaying tactics from The Defence, and yet again today.
Amaral's Sequestered Assets must be On Deposit somewhere, and therefor gaining Interest. So who has a right to The Interest?
Perhaps Montclair can answer that. Four years of Interest could be quite considerable.
I don't recall suggesting that I think I am well versed. Nor do I recall using the word proof. I couldn't hope to aspire to level of expertise in this forum but are you saying that the Supreme Court didn't rule in favour of Dr Amaral with respect to publication of his book?
Hi SH, when did that happen, was it in the last 24 hours ?
To be more precise, they lifted the injunction with was granted after an ex parte hearing. They did not rule on whether the book was defamatory. That is of course the subject of the current trial.
To be more precise, they lifted the injunction with was granted after an ex parte hearing. They did not rule on whether the book was defamatory. That is of course the subject of the current trial.
They all contributed to hampering the search. But since most of the bullshit came fro PJ Leaks, it doesn't take much to realise what was going on.
Shame on The UK Media for doing this.
More pertinently, how have the mccanns repeatedly hampered the search for Madeleine ?
Jerry Lawton Twitter
10:17 AM - 7 Jan 2014
#McCann libel trial adjourned to date to be fixed after Goncalo Amaral's lawyers submitted more documents at last minute.
https://twitter.com/JerryLawton
information is frequently brought to the courts attention at "the last minute"...
information is frequently brought to the courts attention at "the last minute" ...doesnt mean it IS some "delaying tactic"
After four years? Goodness me. This could go on forever.
After four years? Goodness me. This could go on forever.
Oh, I see. This current Trial is all a bit of fun for The Portuguese Court. Damn it. Why didn't I realise that?
'I hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine'
Yes if the rotten journalists had just printed those efits 5 years ago like Kate & Gerry begged them to do then Maddie would have been home by now.
Yes, this is what I was referring to, all.
Thanks red - had a late start over here today! Shoveling ice and snow. Minus 20C at 11am this morning!
Anyway , not a clever statement to make in the circumstances, no?
Blimey...thats coooold!!
No problem....just hate knee jerk posts
I dont think the FM FB page webMASTER is that "clever" anyways
@)(++(*
perhaps she/he doesnt keep up in general.....well, obvious they dont....but even if they did, they have no lawyers brain to think before sending.....
Well that's what I mean, Red. Shouldn't the webmaster be reading the news? Doesn't he or she know there's a trial, recommencing imminentely, in which the McCann's are claiming something very different?
Well that's what I mean, Red. Shouldn't the webmaster be reading the news? Doesn't he or she know there's a trial, recommencing imminentely, in which the McCann's are claiming something very different?
they aren't claiming anything different. Amarals book hindered the search for maddie and so did some newspaper articles
How?
they aren't claiming anything different. Amarals book hindered the search for maddie and so did some newspaper articles
Utter rubbish.
its obvious..both at some stage claimed that maddie had died
So how has that harmed the search?
I reckon she is dead.
Has my statement damaged the search too?
no cuz no one takes any notice of you
You just did.
So how has that harmed the search?
I reckon she is dead.
Has my statement damaged the search too?
You just did.
Are you for real? Do you not see the difference between a post on a forum by a nobody and a national newspaper?
No different really...most people read the papers and say meh.....keep up dear, msm is dead
No different really...most people read the papers and say meh.....keep up dear, msm is dead
yes...everyones reading your posts and admiring your wisdom...are you on the same stuff as spam
yes...everyones reading your posts and admiring your wisdom...are you on the same stuff as spam
Some of my postings get disscussed on other sites,so I'm told, by gullible idiots who believe I'm a paedo supporting, homophobic satan worshipper from outer space.
Lool thats ignorant morons for you
@)(++(*
She certainly adds to this forum in way of links to facts & articles & all the videos she has posted.
its obvious..both at some stage claimed that maddie had died
Next May she can be legally declared dead.
Next May she can be legally declared dead.
Yes. But irrelevant. So why mention it?
that make you pleased it does ?
Mentioning the possibility of her death damages the search apparently.
Thus when she is legally declared dead the search will no doubt die with her.
Not particularly, it just seems stupid that some people are getting upset that others think she is dead when by next May the law will accept it.
There is a clear and obvious distinction between what is legally presumed and what is (or is not!) established by a police enquiry.
Currently, a person is generally taken to be dead if, after seven years, (a) there has been no evidence of their continued existence; (b) the people most likely to have heard from them have not had any contact; and (c) inquiries have been made of that person, without success.[2] This is a rebuttable presumption at common law - that is, should the person subsequently appear, they are no longer taken to be dead.
Has Ben Needham been officially declared dead?
I don't think so. I hope not. There's every chance that he'll find his way home, one day. Possibly through facebook. Kerry Needham is a legend.
Only Madeleine's parents can apply to have her declared deceased. And they have no need to, nor are they going to.
Also any request could very well be denied, which it almost certainly would be. Especially since there would be no purpose to such an application.
Agree, puglove. She's an incredible person.
Wish we could do something to help her regarding the petition...I'm trying to think of things. Red had a few suggestions. Trying to give the matter more thought as I also believe there is a small but real chance he could still be around, and at the age where he could easily think to look up something about himself or his background.
Anyway off topic, I suppose. Wrote a bit about the petition in the Ben section.
its obvious..both at some stage claimed that maddie had died
No point in mentioning those who have survived, few though they may be. But then I'm with the Taken for a Childless Couple Brigade. I always have been an optimist. And it has happened.
It seems to me that too much trouble went into this to be for a Paedophile.
Why not take Amelie then?
Splitting up twins would have been immensely psychologically damaging for the child. Both children actually, but you know what I mean.And maybe someone wanted Madeleine especially. or
No point in mentioning those who have survived, few though they may be. But then I'm with the Taken for a Childless Couple Brigade. I always have been an optimist. And it has happened.
It seems to me that too much trouble went into this to be for a Paedophile.
Occasionally I have the irrational thought that it might have been 'removal by arrangement', but that everything went pear-shaped when the family fell under suspicion and that everything that has subsequently happened has been an attempt to exonerate the family from responsibility.
Irrational, as I say, for despite the barrage of publicity, there has never been a single hint of her being alive, safe and well in the bosom of a loving family. Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence to support this idea.
@)(++(*
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/childless-couple-in-link-to-maddie-mystery
tempted fate there didn't you?
@)(++(*
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/childless-couple-in-link-to-maddie-mystery
tempted fate there didn't you?
Yeh this was last year in July nothing happened then.....thanks colombo
Surprised Guedes isn't around to tell us. Funny, that.
Well it has gone a bit beyond the sublime, hasn't it.
I read Friday somewhere, but it didn't say which Friday. At this rate we'll be lucky if it's before Good Friday in some year or another.
Wild exagerrations get you nowhere.....learn patience
@)(++(*
Well they need to sue who ever does the stats then, as statistically speaking sadly if she was taken away by a pedophile, she will have died within about 3 hours of her being taken.
That's fact not fiction sadly.
Children under 5 who are taken are usually found dead sadly unless its a baby. Its a horrible world out there.
One can't help wondering what would be said if The McCanns were producing all of these delaying tactics.
How do you know that it wasn't the McCanns who presented a document to the court?Twitter said it was amarel...has he denied it?
Twitter said it was amarel...has he denied it?
Splitting up twins would have been immensely psychologically damaging for the child. Both children actually, but you know what I mean.
I don't imagine someone stealing a child would be overly concerned about emotionally damaging the child. In those circumstances a younger child would be preferable surly?
Nobody can say what happened because the postponement was not decided in an open court session.
So the "Adoptive" parents spending loads of money wouldn't care if the child was emotionally damaged, and wouldn't care if it was one of twins?
But using someone's surname without a title isn't? If you wish to be treated with respect, perhaps you should pratice what you preach.
Yes, how many anonymous users are prepared to show their real name? Respect where it is deserved please.
Anne is taking some time out.
There aren't many of us on here who are prepared to use our own names so it just doesn't cut mustard when anonymous posters use their status to abuse by using members real surnames in some sort of derogatory manner.
There aren't many of us on here who are prepared to use our own names so it just doesn't cut mustard when anonymous posters use their status to abuse by using members real surnames in some sort of derogatory manner.
author=Wonderfulspam link=topic=2202.msg118868#msg118868 date=1389221743]
Anne has made a great contribution to the forum with her court reports.
To some of us she is a valued and respected member.
Thankyou Anne.
+1
+1
And many other contributions.....to attack her was quite the lowest of the low IMO....mYbe some people hated what was IN the court reports so attack the messenger....
>@@(*&)
+1
+1
And many other contributions.....to attack her was quite the lowest of the low IMO....mYbe some people hated what was IN the court reports so attack the messenger....
I'll have some of that as well.
>@@(*&)
Just in from Nigel Moore of Mccannfiles
Nigel Moore @mccannfiles 23m
GA lawyer on court delay: "There is a legal conflict in whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann can represent their daughter in court." #mccann
Nigel Moore @mccannfiles 17m
GA:"Everything should be about what happened to Madeleine.The case's core has shifted...It has become an industry -an absurd theatre"#mccann
Sounds fairly typical.
Just in from Nigel Moore of Mccannfiles
Nigel Moore @mccannfiles 17m
GA:"Everything should be about what happened to Madeleine.The case's core has shifted...It has become an industry -an absurd theatre"#mccann
Just in from Nigel Moore of Mccannfiles
Nigel Moore @mccannfiles 23m
GA lawyer on court delay: "There is a legal conflict in whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann can represent their daughter in court." #mccann
Nigel Moore @mccannfiles 17m
GA:"Everything should be about what happened to Madeleine.The case's core has shifted...It has become an industry -an absurd theatre"#mccann
Cant argue with that!
As he agrees that it should all be about Madeleine, why has his lawyer filed an objection to her being represented in court?
As he agrees that it should all be about Madeleine, why has his lawyer filed an objection to her being represented in court?
Because in the eye's of the law, the court's represent Madeleine now, so any action 'for' Madeleine has to be done by they, in a word Madeleine isn't K and M's now.
I always thought that was the case - that they had handed all legal responsibility for Madeleine to the court, but the court never seemed interested in exercising that right and preventing the McCanns from their various activities, so I assumed that I was wrong..
So Justice Hogg pointless?
What surprises me about this ward of court thing is that it is being introduce towards the end of the trial. I'd have thought it is something Amaral' team would have considered much earlier on. Perhaps they did and have held it back in an attempt to destabilise the McCann team.
I assume it was his 'ace' card. I'd suspect the trial to be delayed while the McCann's reply. Where does this 'the fund' I wonder?
Like I said, it probably never occurred to Amaral until he read it on a Forum somewhere. Desperation if you ask me.
Personally, I have never thought that it would wash because The McCanns retain the right to speak for Madeleine, and to have custody, care and control when she is returned to The UK, by order of The UK Court.
That is what Ward of Court means in this instance.
You've seen this in writing, have you? Perhaps you could provide a link so the rest of us can share it.
What surprises me about this ward of court thing is that it is being introduce towards the end of the trial. I'd have thought it is something Amaral' team would have considered much earlier on. Perhaps they did and have held it back in an attempt to destabilise the McCann team.
It was all explained many, many moons ago. And I don't have the time or patience to track it down.
Believe it or not, as you wish. It isn't exactly of serious importance if that is the best Amaral can do.
I have no idea.
It was my understanding that the powers of the court overruled any interests of the parents, but these family court things are shrouded in secrecy, so who knows what conditions were set when the Ward of Court order was granted.
If you are not prepared to support a claim then it is, perhaps, best not to make it
This particular type of propaganda is one you use frequently, Eleanor
'Spurious rejection of a question'
Use invalid or spurious reasons for rejecting a question that you don't wish to answer
What surprises me about this ward of court thing is that it is being introduce towards the end of the trial. I'd have thought it is something Amaral' team would have considered much earlier on. Perhaps they did and have held it back in an attempt to destabilise the McCann team.
The only reason he would care about whether or not Madeleine is also a plaintiff is if he knew he was going to lose and was trying to minimise the damages awarded against him. The less plaintiffs, the less damages. That's the only reason he would be worrying about this now.
But using someone's surname without a title isn't? If you wish to be treated with respect, perhaps you should pratice what you preach.
Ah. I hadn't thought about that aspect.
ETA. But even so, that wouldn't really explain the last-minute issue.
The only reason he would care about whether or not Madeleine is also a plaintiff is if he knew he was going to lose and was trying to minimise the damages awarded against him. The less plaintiffs, the less damages. That's the only reason he would be worrying about this now.
If you are not prepared to support a claim then it is, perhaps, best not to make it
This particular type of propaganda is one you use frequently, Eleanor
'Spurious rejection of a question'
Use invalid or spurious reasons for rejecting a question that you don't wish to answer
If you are not prepared to support a claim then it is, perhaps, best not to make it
This particular type of propaganda is one you use frequently, Eleanor
'Spurious rejection of a question'
Use invalid or spurious reasons for rejecting a question that you don't wish to answer
Everyone knows that Madeleine is a Ward of Court. The precise terms are really not that important.
First Madeleine was on The Writ, and then she wasn't, and now she appears to be back on again. No doubt we will be shortly informed of the legalities of the situation.
In this instance I cannot be bothered to ask who said what, and when. If you can make sense of all the rubbish that has gone on about this.
As this is a legal case I suspect the precise terms might prove to be very important.
So is she on The Writ or not?
But don't worry about it because I expect we will find out soon.
I'm sure we will, and I, for one, am more than happy to wait until it is.
It was all explained many, many moons ago. And I don't have the time or patience to track it down.
Believe it or not, as you wish. It isn't exactly of serious importance if that is the best Amaral can do.
IIRC the main reason was to eliminate any 'wrangling' or 'argument' if Madeleine was discovered in a foreign Country. As a Ward of Court she would have to be immediately placed under British jurisdiction. (From memory so can't be absolutely sure.)
You are correct about such a status making repatriation easier but the reason the Ward of Court status was applied for and was granted was so judges could act in Madeleine's best interests in any legal dispute namely when Mr & Mrs McCann applied to the High Court to force Leicester Police to release case documentation. 83 pages out of 11000 files were released to them.
"It emerged last night their missing daughter was made a ward of court last summer at her parents' request so judges could act in her best interests in any legal dispute."
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028169/McCanns-asked-missing-Madeleine-ward-court.html
The libel trial in Lisbon is a legal dispute is it not? One also has to wonder how the Ward of Court status will affect the McCann's application for Assistente (private prosecutor) status.
Just repeating this as there is a lot of speculation that it was Goncalo Amaral who delayed the libel trial going ahead on the 7th when in fact it was the McCann's lawyer Isabel Duarte who requested a postponement.
'Posted with kind permission from astro
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.
This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared.'
Thank you!
Anyone for
(http://blisshabits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Pie_01.jpg)
?
There is more hope of David Cameron switching to Labour than there is of anyone taking a slice of that humble pie ;)
There is more hope of David Cameron switching to Labour than there is of anyone taking a slice of that humble pie ;)Is this referring to Amaral delaying the Mccann v Amaral trial on the other thread?
Is this referring to Amaral delaying the Mccann v Amaral trial on the other thread?
Cos we were talking about the delays over several years NOT the delays since Tuesday this week !
From things that I have read around I feel I am safe to say that Amaral kept producing delaying tactics to draw the period of the trial out.
This is but a small delay in comparison to the years of delay experienced before and aparantly caused by Amaral.
Please correct me if I am wrong because I have read about the Amaral delays and I cannot any more prove them. I am too tired.
On that note, I wish you Good night
Things you have 'read around' but cannot prove because you are too tired, is of no value here
When you are less tired, and have evidence to support your claims, perhaps you can try again
good night
Thank you!
Anyone for
(http://blisshabits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Pie_01.jpg)
?
I must be missing something. How can anyone claim it wasn't Amaral who caused the delay? Of course it was. He filed a last minute argument, over the weekend, in reference to an issue he could have raised months ago. That's the source of the delay.
I must be missing something. How can anyone claim it wasn't Amaral who caused the delay? Of course it was. He filed a last minute argument, over the weekend, in reference to an issue he could have raised months ago. That's the source of the delay.
It was Isabel Duarte who requested the postponement, when she submitted some document re Alan Pike.
So is she on The Writ or not?
But don't worry about it because I expect we will find out soon.
Just another myth 8(0(*
The mccanns, associates and supporters have spread so many.
It was Isabel Duarte who requested the postponement, when she submitted some document re Alan Pike.
Just repeating this as there is a lot of speculation that it was Goncalo Amaral who delayed the libel trial going ahead on the 7th when in fact it was the McCann's lawyer Isabel Duarte who requested a postponement.
'Posted with kind permission from astro
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.
This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared.'
It was Isabel Duarte who requested the postponement, when she submitted some document re Alan Pike.
So it had nothing to do with this Portuguese footballer who died, then?
Gosh. Look at this. Fifteen Days to submit relevant documentation, which Amaral obviously didn't submit at the time.
Sounds like a postponement to me.
What documents might they be, do you think ?
The payment receipts he got from book sales.
What documents might they be, do you think ?
I haven't got a clue what's going on, or who said what, did what and postponed what!
Has Dr Amaral submitted reciepts?
Has Dr Amaral and co brought something up about the ward of court business at the last minute?
Has Mrs Duarte made a request for a postponement to allow time to submit more info re Alan Pike?
Did court convene on the 7th for the judge to announce a postponement?
I'm sorry if I'm just being thick, I just don't know what's rumour and what's fact.
For heavens sake, courts of law aren't influenced by dead footballers. Jessssus!
That was the knee-jerk reaction from Heidie-ho.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg105?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=105&cdThread=TxELQEAT6FXQKG
It's not hard to find even when with someone clearly as inadequate as you.
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy
--------------------
to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.
This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared.
wasn't the McCann's as you stated was it Stephen
It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
stephens source
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/Astro_07_01_2014.htm ?>)()<
Whilst freezing my backside on the family three holer in the shack out back I wondered if Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro has to pay back part of her salary due to the entertainment value she gains from this trial? Imagine the dinner table “Did you have a good day in court darling?” she chuckles as she raises her wine glass “ you would never believe what those [insert the posh Portuguese word for the plural of tosser in here] have been up to today dear ………..”.
I apologise to Anne Guedes for nicking and paraphrasing her work. But consider:
One witness turns up with an interpreter who isn’t up to the mark and the judge has to help her out (Julio Geordio rides again). The same witness professes to be an expert on the case and shows that she actually don’t know A from a bulls foot; another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it. Two witnesses are sent home because they can’t bring anything to the party. One witness (President of the Bar Council?) makes himself ineligible because he has taken his eye off the ball. One witness doesn’t answer a question in case he drops his mate in it so the judge answers it for him. Two witnesses represent both sides. The Judge puts several fleas in several ears reminding various folk it is HER job to compare the book and the police reports not theirs. At the end of the bout it’s difficult to see whether anyone actually laid a glove on an opponent. Before the judges’ cards have been handed to the referee for counting, one contestant says he thinks the opposition played a ringer and another contestant asks to have recount on a previous round.
It really is beyond parody. One inclines to the view that in wasn’t in the script that it should ever wind up in court.
This really funny, although I'm not sure precisely of whom you are speaking. Which is probably a good job.
Never mind. Back to the fray.
Well Eleanor being a member of neither the blue team nor the red team I selected examples from both just to be even handed.
What cannot be escaped is that a little girl went on holiday and did not return. That event led to an international circus from which a lot of people have made a lot of money, however the little girl remains unaccounted for 7 years later. Unfortunately being on this forum makes us part of that circus. Isn't it wonderful being a member of the human race?
I am getting to quite like you. You have the means and ability to think. Even though we don't agree.
Well Eleanor being a member of neither the blue team nor the red team I selected examples from both just to be even handed.
What cannot be escaped is that a little girl went on holiday and did not return. That event led to an international circus from which a lot of people have made a lot of money, however the little girl remains unaccounted for 7 years later. Unfortunately being on this forum makes us part of that circus. Isn't it wonderful being a member of the human race?
8((()*/
I am an animal lover , humans come much lower down the love list for me.
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy
--------------------
to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.
This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared.
wasn't the McCann's as you stated was it Stephen
It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
stephens source
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/Astro_07_01_2014.htm ?>)()<
I haven't got a clue what's going on, or who said what, did what and postponed what!
Has Dr Amaral submitted reciepts?
Has Dr Amaral and co brought something up about the ward of court business at the last minute?
Has Mrs Duarte made a request for a postponement to allow time to submit more info re Alan Pike?
Did court convene on the 7th for the judge to announce a postponement?
I'm sorry if I'm just being thick, I just don't know what's rumour and what's fact.
An abstract from the linked document
And it accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.
This should get a Nobel Prize for droll.
It is up to the publishers and the video producers to produce the receipts not Gonçalo Amaral after all they were the ones who paid him.
The WOC issue had already been brought up previously by GA's lawyer but only now did the judge decide to ask for documentation confirming this state.
All I know is that Isabel Duarte asked for a postponement after submitting a document re Alan Pike.
The court did not convene on the 7th. The lawyers were informed the day before.
Most of it should....but you know how these thngs work, ask for the sky, declare the worst, expect to be met half way....Thats why I could never be a lawyer....dirty world
I really don't get you guys. You're upset so much by those words
Not necessarily in PT, but in a place where it would be so difficult to sue them that no-one would bother.
I don't believe the case was ever expected to go to court. This was the first one that did. The English press settled out which is par for the course. Allegedly another libel suit was pulled by the plaintiffs. I believe the expectation was to settle out. Looking at the witnesses for the plaintiffs and their conduct in court according to Anne Guedes' translations; well I wouldn't that lot standing next to me in a trench would you?. I believe it was cobbled together in a rush despite all the hanging about because they were caught out and it wound up in court. If it wasn't cobbled together and was a master plan.......jeez.
Can you answer this one Montclair. For those of us who were wanting to attend the sitting on the 7 January and who had flights and accommodation booked, finding out a few hours beforehand is not acceptable. Does the court not give proper advance warning of these postponements and if so, where please?
As I have already posted...Alan Pike was called to attest to kates suffering...did amarals team call any experts to contest his evidence...no..it would have been a waste of time.
I'm not aware of my being supported davel, What type of people are these supposed supporters exactly?
I could explain exactly what I mean but my post would be removed
but you arte making it up...since when is it a policemans job to write a book about an ongoing case. don't forget he was sacked from the case by his superiors
but you arte making it up...since when is it a policemans job to write a book about an ongoing case. don't forget he was sacked from the case by his superiors
He was removed from the case for criticizing the UK police who were interfering with the investigation.
As to who writes a book................as a result of what happened, i.e. her and her husbands neglect.
Like I said, you could not make this up.
km wrote a book, quite narcissistic and then some,
The judge is only obliged to inform the lawyers. Those who want to attend do so at their risk. I believe that the decision was made on Monday when Isabel Duarte made her request for a postponement.
<snip>
and the trial of that same former investigator accused of libel by the McCanns comes to its conclusion in Lisbon on Tuesday
<snip>
The closing statements and judge’s verdict on the case are due this week in Lisbon.
<snip>
The Lisbon libel trial of Goncalo Amaral has been such a catalyst, and its conclusion this week will drive the disappearance of Madeleine McCann back up the UK and Portuguese media and public agendas.
http://theconversation.com/the-mediatisation-of-madeleine-mccann-23563
dated 23/2/14
Try as I have to look at this whole thing objectively, in the light of Free Speech, I simply cannot see how Amaral can win. He has committed Libel and to rule otherwise will create massive fall out. Everyone in Portugal would become fair game.
This is not a political opinion on my part. There are two parts to The Constitution on Free Speech, the second of which some people see fit to ignore. The fact that it is written secondly does not make it any less important than the first part.
At the moment, that is merely an opinion. If it were otherwise, then there wouldn't be a case before the courts.
Try as I have to look at this whole thing objectively, in the light of Free Speech, I simply cannot see how Amaral can win. He has committed Libel and to rule otherwise will create massive fall out. Everyone in Portugal would become fair game.
This is not a political opinion on my part. There are two parts to The Constitution on Free Speech, the second of which some people see fit to ignore. The fact that it is written secondly does not make it any less important than the first part.
That statement doesn't make sense. Amaral has made accusations against The McCanns that he cannot prove. And he wasn't going to stop simply because The McCanns asked him to. So of course it had to go to Court. The question is only,
"Does anyone in Portugal have the right to print and record Libel?"
I don't know the answer to that. But if it decided that he does then I shudder to think what will be printed about Amaral in Portugal. Believe me, there are many people only too ready to print "Libellous Opinions" about him. Many of which have far more credibility than anything he has had to say about The McCanns.
In what manner of hope?
Please be specific Eleanor. In your opinion, how has Mr Amaral committed a libel?
in his book and in interviews amaral has said that Maddie died in the apt and the McCanns covered up her death and staged an abduction...that...by uk defn is libel...hope in as much as the mccannns are awarded damages and amaral is found guilty of libel
Did he not state that the official police evidence pointed to this scenario?
The Official Police Evidence is only an opinion. And The Official Police Evidence did not write his book or give interviews on television or in The Media.
The Attorney General discarded this Official Evidence.
That statement doesn't make sense. Amaral has made accusations against The McCanns that he cannot prove. And he wasn't going to stop simply because The McCanns asked him to. So of course it had to go to Court. The question is only,
"Does anyone in Portugal have the right to print and record Libel?"
I don't know the answer to that. But if it decided that he does then I shudder to think what will be printed about Amaral in Portugal. Believe me, there are many people only too ready to print "Libellous Opinions" about him. Many of which have far more credibility than anything he has had to say about The McCanns.
Did he not state that the official police evidence pointed to this scenario?
He didn't discard it Eleanor, he archived it pending receipt of further evidence
He didn't discard it Eleanor, he archived it pending receipt of further evidence
The McCanns consider that he has committed libel and have taken him to court.
If the judge finds in his favour, he will not be guilty of libel.
If the judge finds in favour of the McCanns, then Amaral will be guilty of libel.
Therefore, at present, it is only an opinion that libel has been committed.
in his book and in interviews amaral has said that Maddie died in the apt and the McCanns covered up her death and staged an abduction...that...by uk defn is libel...hope in as much as the mccannns are awarded damages and amaral is found guilty of libel
The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.
Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.
That is libel ...
The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.
Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.
That is libel ...
The strict criterion of libel is that statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of a third-party are libel.
Amaral's book is riddled with statements demonstrably false that lower the reputation of the McCanns.
That is libel ...
its actually a little more than that. He has accused them of a criminal act..as I understand in most US states this would also be deemed libellous.It depends on Portuguese libel law which none of us really understand but the fact that Murat won his case against CDM gives me hope
Can you give us an example?
My understanding of Murat's case is that it was somewhat different though.
In his case, although the burden of proof is normally on the complainant in a civil case in Portugal, the burden of proof shifted back to the publisher / editor of the newspaper as the duties set out in media law came into play. I'm not entirely sure where the burden of proof will be in the McCann case.
My understanding of Murat's case is that it was somewhat different though.
In his case, although the burden of proof is normally on the complainant in a civil case in Portugal, the burden of proof shifted back to the publisher / editor of the newspaper as the duties set out in media law came into play. I'm not entirely sure where the burden of proof will be in the McCann case.
An?
Amaral's depiction of Harrison's role in the investigation is outright fraudulent.
Amaral says Eddie had "no hesitation" in picking out the Renault. Untrue.
Amaral says Eddie detected cadaver scent all over the place. The statements of both Grime and Harrison refute that.
Harrison plagiarised the proper detective work of Harrison to reach a "finding" that Gerry hid Madeleine's body on the beach
....
Well we can postulate and pontificate as much as we like but when push comes to shove the only opinion which will count is that of Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. As she repeatedly told witnesses in the trial to date.
Can anyone explain why these 'lies' haven't been outlined by the McCanns witnesses during the current trial ?
So, when they have been demonstrated to the judge's satisfaction, it will be declared libel. Until then it isn't.
Assuming there are no appeals ...
Well it might end up like Jarndyce and Jarndyce.?{)(**
Just as an aside there was a fraud case in India, that went on seemingly forever, which was finally thrown out when the last living witness died.
I think what has been made public of the trial is the tip of the ice berg.
The majority of the case consists of written submissions, I reckon.
Can anyone explain why these 'lies' haven't been outlined by the McCanns witnesses during the current trial ?
Basically because they are outside the terms of writ. @)(++(*A Professor MBE as a witness of the supposed lies, that would have been good stuff for the accusation...
My understanding is that Portugal libel law is similar to the US. In the US in most states if the defamation relates to a criminal act it becomes "libel per se " and the onus of proof moves to the defendant. This may be what happened in the Murat case and therefore may be true for the McCann case
I think what has been made public of the trial is the tip of the ice berg.
The majority of the case consists of written submissions, I reckon.
This is my understanding also, ferryman.
From Anne's reports on the trial the judge made it quite clear it was her job to compare the book with the PJ reports. She would not have been able do that in court!. I seem to remember that the thrust of the writ was that the book defamed the McCanns, had caused them and their surviving children harm and the book had impeded the search for Madeleine McCann. All of this is being judged under Portuguese law. It remains to be seen how the new UK Law on defamation will affect reporting there with the new defence of "honest opinion".
From Anne's reports on the trial the judge made it quite clear it was her job to compare the book with the PJ reports. She would not have been able do that in court!. I seem to remember that the thrust of the writ was that the book defamed the McCanns, had caused them and their surviving children harm and the book had impeded the search for Madeleine McCann. All of this is being judged under Portuguese law. It remains to be seen how the new UK Law on defamation will affect reporting there with the new defence of "honest opinion".The legitimacy of GA's opinion as expressed in his book has already been judged and the book finally came back in the bookshops. What is judged now are the effects of that book, independently of its conformity to the conclusions of the PJ investigation in September, conclusions that Paulo Rebelo, who started his work reviewing GA Team's work, didn't dismiss.
The legitimacy of GA's opinion as expressed in his book has already been judged and the book finally came back in the bookshops. What is judged now are the effects of that book, independently of its conformity to the conclusions of the PJ investigation in September, conclusions that Paulo Rebelo, who started his work reviewing GA Team's work, didn't dismiss.
When you say true things that potentially affect others, you need a serious motive and it has to be in the interest of the public's information, otherwise you risk to be condemned for malice.
What about when you say untrue things
That's where it becomes difficult - who really knows what is true & what is false?
What about when you say untrue thingsThen you're condemned without any hope.
Then you're condemned without any hope.
What I meant is that it's not sufficient to say the truth (whether it is the truth or what you think is true), the motivation behind is crucial.
That's where it becomes difficult - who really knows what is true & what is false?
What is true - (unless there are some serious translation errors in his book) - is that much in his book is NOT corroborated by the PJ files - as claimed.
Here is just one example:-
QUOTE from Amarals book:-
It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE
Where is the corroboration for that accusation? There is none, and the AGs report makes that quite clear.
QUOTE FROM AG
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless.
Unquote
So to go on repeating these things when they have been shown to be false is not even honest opinion
What is true - (unless there are some serious translation errors in his book) - is that much in his book is NOT corroborated by the PJ files - as claimed.Stricto senso, Mrs Oldfield contacted a BBC journalist friend in the middle of the night.
Here is just one example:-
QUOTE from Amarals book:-
It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE
Where is the corroboration for that accusation? There is none, and the AGs report makes that quite clear.
QUOTE FROM AG
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless.
Unquote
Correct me if I am wrong but the libel case is about defamation of the McCanns, the harm it caused the McCanns and their surviving children and the content of Dr Amaral's book having had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine McCann. If so anything said about The McCanns friends will be hardly relevant. Dr Amaral is on trial for alleged defamation b****r all else.
Stricto senso, Mrs Oldfield contacted a BBC journalist friend in the middle of the night.
I think you will find amaral said a lot more than that
I suppose it will all depend upon what is considered relevant within the scope of the trial.
mrs Oldfield called a journalist she knew in spite of the police asking not to involve the media.
Stricto senso, Mrs Oldfield contacted a BBC journalist friend in the middle of the night.
What I meant is that it's not sufficient to say the truth (whether it is the truth or what you think is true), the motivation behind is crucial.
But to clarify in the case of libel (an untrue, harmful statement), there normally has to be proof of intent to harm, or at least it should be self-evident that in issuing the statement, harm would be caused.The conformity of the book isn't in question now. Only the impact on the McCanns.
The conformity of the book isn't in question now. Only the impact on the McCanns.
They have to prove they have suffered because of the book and that the investigation (their) was hampered.
What a terrible position for a parent to find themselves in.They say they suffer because the family isn't complete. As parents whose child unfortunately died.
They say they suffer because the family isn't complete. As parents whose child unfortunately died.]
The conformity of the book isn't in question now. Only the impact on the McCanns.
They have to prove they have suffered because of the book and that the investigation (their) was hampered.
QUOTE from Amarals book:-
It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it
UNQUOTE
That is in fact true. Both the tapas-9 friend and the family member who contacted the BBC and Sky News did not contact the police beforehand, that responsibility was left to AN Other.
The comment should not be taken to mean that the Press were contacted before the police.
As the forum expert on the Libel trial would it be possible for Anne Guedes to comment on the situation in Lisbon?
I am aware that she has not posted for a month or so but see that she is online daily.
I would much appreciate some indication from her as to what is going on with th trial.
Has the trial concluded? If so what was the result?
If the trial has not concluded does Anne Guedes know any details regarding when it might continue?
If specifics are not known, then is the apparently unexplained interruption to proceedings unusual in Portuguese cases similar to this one?
I find the libel trial quite bizarre but then that is probably the way these things work in Portugal. I can tell you that it hasn't concluded yet gilet as there are still some outstanding issues to be determined in open court. When this will happen is anyone's guess. 8-)(--)
Basically a case of watch this space.
Any evidence for this statement that the trial has not concluded by any chance?
Just wondering, like!
It seems...from a portuguese poster...that this is how justice works in Portugal and this could still drag on and onand on...no wonder the mcccannns and tapas didn't want to go back to such a judicial farce
Any evidence for this statement that the trial has not concluded by any chance?
Just wondering, like!
It seems...from a portuguese poster...that this is how justice works in Portugal and this could still drag on and onand on...no wonder the mcccannns and tapas didn't want to go back to such a judicial farce
Our system of course is so much better; Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, McDonald Corporation v Steel and Morris, any one of several negligence claims against The NHS that drift on and on, just for starters.
But of course these will be "different" will they not?
This is a straightforward libel trial
Nothing seems straightforward where the McCanns are concerned. This trial would appear no different.
how long did the one with Bennett take in the UK
Any evidence for this statement that the trial has not concluded by any chance?
Just wondering, like!
It seems...from a portuguese poster...that this is how justice works in Portugal and this could still drag on and onand on...no wonder the mcccannns and tapas didn't want to go back to such a judicial farce
The Portuguese Judge has requested written confirmation as to Madeleine's Ward of Court status since under English Law she can now be officially declared dead after Saturday. Seemingly Amaral has had to pay for this.
Are you sure the judge requested it as according sites Amaral is having to pay for the costs of this request and is appealing for funds
The Portuguese Judge has requested written confirmation as to Madeleine's Ward of Court status since under English Law she can now be officially declared dead after Saturday. Seemingly Amaral has had to pay for this.
Looks like there will be more action soon in the trial. Considering how hard we have been told it is to win a libel trial in Portugal it will be a massive victory for Kate and Gerry if they do win.
.............and more likely they will fail. >@@(*&)
Looks like there will be more action soon in the trial. Considering how hard we have been told it is to win a libel trial in Portugal it will be a massive victory for Kate and Gerry if they do win.
He had to pay because it was his lawyer that requested it...not the judge....according to one of his supporters..astro...looks like more of his delaying tactics...quote from astro...
As many of you will know, the trial of the action that opposes the McCann couple to Gonçalo Amaral, and others, has been suspended, awaiting information about the status of Madeleine McCann as a Ward of Court.
The documentation that attests that status has been requested and obtained by Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer through a lawyer in London from the competent court, and will soon be delivered to the judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon.
The obtainment of said evidence was time-consuming and expensive, and the costs will be fully met by Gonçalo Amaral.
We appeal, once more, to those who are able to help us to collect the funds that are needed to cover this expense, to contribute through Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.
What exactly was the point of that? And why do it so late if he felt it was important?
We will see how good your judgement is then Stephen...
Have you forgotten how Amaral was unable to prove he was libelled by the nut-ball Correia ?
amaral doesnt seem to have much success in court does he
and the mccanns in their most recent cases in Portugal ???
the one that kept all amarals assets frozen...that one
No davel, the ones that overturned the book ban 8((()*/
You have proof of that ?
proof of what...his assets are still frozen
It was an exparte judgement...the other side didn't attend...so yes tahts proof
I wasn't talking about his assets davel.
I was talking about the overturning of the book ban whicg occurred over several hearings and which Duarte of course refused to return the books, which were already common knowledge.
As to 'making money' that's exactly what the mccanns have done from the serialization rights in the sun. Gross to say the least,
So amaral won when the other side didn't show and his assets are still frozen
As I have said we all realise how difficult it is to win a libel trial in Portugal so it will be a massive victory for the McCanns if they win
and if they don't.......................
up shitte creak without a paddle.
Can you prove the mccanns weren't represented in those hearings ?
and if true, I await on that, because they knew they would lose ?
Do you understand what EX Parte means...you don't seem to understand the basics]
If the McCanns lose....as they have now been declared not suspects....it really wont make a lot of difference,
Do you understand what EX Parte means...you don't seem to understand the basics
If the McCanns lose....as they have now been declared not suspects....it really wont make a lot of difference,
We do!
could you explain it to stephen
... and another thing
This trial has been on hold for six months
During that time the McCanns and their lawyers knew that the reason for the trial being suspended was because their right to represent Madeleine's interests in court had been brought into question
They have, therefore, had six months to obtain and present to the Judge the documentation she is now allowing them 30 days to submit
It's become a farce
So Gerry is being permitted to give the court an impact statement? Good news! I'm glad the Judge has seen fit to allow him to give evidence in person. I bet Amaral was spitting blood at that one! 8@??)(
amaral has had six years to raise this point and he has waited to the last minute..tthe farce has been caused by amaral
... and another thing
This trial has been on hold for six months
During that time the McCanns and their lawyers knew that the reason for the trial being suspended was because their right to represent Madeleine's interests in court had been brought into question
They have, therefore, had six months to obtain and present to the Judge the documentation she is now allowing them 30 days to submit
It's become a farce
The original action which achieved a temporary injunction and effective sequestration of Dr Amaral's funds was an ex-parte action brought by the McCanns. The most common ex parte hearing is a request for a rapid injunction of one kind or another where there is insufficient time to notify the other party. Even in ex-parte actions there will be a "winner" and a "loser".
Both parties have the right to be heard by the court making the ruling. An ex parte hearing will usually result in only a temporary ruling until the "defendant" can be served and a full hearing held.
UK law. That should clear it up.
In the event this particular injunction was overturned at the Appeal Court and Dr Amaral was awarded some costs.
That is what happened, interpret it as you wish.
I have a feeling there's going to be tears before bedtime Carlymichelle.
Events are progressing slowly but in comparison to the inaction of the past seven years they are actually moving at breakneck speed.
The Court of Appeal has recognised and allowed the victim impact statements of Madeleine's parents to be heard.
Although it hardly appears to be necessary.
Just this week we have had confirmation of the vitriolic campaign directed at Madeleine and her parents as epitomised by the sentiments publicised by the graffiti painted on the walls at Praia Da Luz.
Surely sending out a subliminal message to the judge who will be aware of it, just as she will be aware of the burning and defacing of Madeleine's posters.
In my opinion there is no need for the Drs McCann to be anything other than relaxed. The trial is secondary to the fact that their tenacious campaign has meant that at long last an official search is being conducted to find Madeleine or to find out what happened to her and I imagine that is their priority.
However I am betting that Dr Amaral is wishing that he had settled this when he had the opportunity.
So all things considered I think the defendants are the ones who may have reason for disquiet.
McCanns Angry Over 'Cynical' Libel Trial Delay
The parents of Madeleine McCann have condemned the postponement of a former police officer's libel trial as a "blatant" attempt to wear them down.
Kate and Gerry McCann had been due to speak at the trial of ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral, who has been accused of making defamatory statements about them in a book he wrote.
At the last minute, Mr Goncalo's lawyers submitted a letter to the court asking for a postponement as he had sacked his legal team.
Speaking outside the court, Gerry McCann said: "Today is a blatant and cynical attempt to wear us down.
"The hearing has been cancelled once again at Mr Amaral's request. This is the fourth time that this has happened and we've travelled to Portugal.
"The legal case has been running now for five years and we want to get justice for Madeleine. It's Madeleine who is suffering. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep going."
(http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/6/16/316867/default/v2/cegrab-20140616-120602-232-1-522x293.jpg)
Mrs McCann, her voice cracking with the strain as she was surrounded by the Portuguese media, added: "We need to make it clear to people that we took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr Amaral has brought to us and our children.
"Every time he postpones the case like this it brings us more pain and distress. Every time we come here we have to make arrangements for our children to be looked after, we have to book flights, we have to book hotels, we have to take time off work.
"Mr Amaral apparently handed that letter in at nine o'clock this morning. That letter could have been handed in before we left the country. As Gerry said, can this be seen as anything but blatant and cynical?
"We just want justice. This is not fair."
Read more... (http://news.sky.com/story/1283299/mccanns-angry-over-cynical-libel-trial-delay)
It's not clear to me how settling this case will ease 'Madeleine's suffering'. Can anyone explain ?
read it through a couple of times and you may be able to understand what kate is saying
I would prefer an explanation - just so there is no misunderstanding.
How is Madeleine's suffering eased by this action ?
that's not what kate is saying...if you cant understand...you cant understand
But that is what is quoted - though actually attributed to Gerry in the post above.
Are you claiming that what she said is being misreported?
just watched on sky martin brunt said that kate said in court that sean asked gerry and kate if they hid maddies body GAs lawer is now asking questions
Martin Brunt has tweeted that Dr Amaral unlike the Drs McCann had failed to appeal the court's decision about allowing them to speak.
Could this be the reason his lawyer was dismissed at the 11th hour?
'I've heard since their lawyer has applied for yet another financial statement about Amaral's financial position'
Enough said.
The mccanns.........................
MONEY, MONEY and even more MONEY.
Is this one of the differences in the legal systems of Portugal and GB?
In Portugal ... the judge issues a firm instruction ... which the person to whom the instruction was directed shows contempt by ignoring it completely.
In GB ... the judge issues a firm instruction ... ignore it at your peril.
As an Officer of the Court, I would imagine Dr Amaral's previous lawyer advised him to submit to the judge's ruling on his requirement to submit financial statements to the court as instructed ... another possible reason for the parting of the ways?
just watched on sky martin brunt said that kate said in court that sean asked gerry and kate if they hid maddies body GAs lawer is now asking questions
Who was that silly cow shouting like a fish wifey outside the court.... @)(++(* bet Amaral was so proud of his lone fish wife with a gob supporter.... @)(++(* @)(++(*
so amaral didnt have the guts to speak up for himself in court
so amaral didnt have the guts to speak up for himself in court
More abuse dave.
Is that the best you can do, after the verbal diarrhea and the 'poor me' act in court today.
No wonder the Portuguese people can't stand the mccanns.
so amaral didnt have the guts to speak up for himself in court
That can't be right can it! I thought he was longing for the day when he finally got to reveal his ace in a court room? @)(++(*
so amaral didnt have the guts to speak up for himself in court
Do you really believe that Gonçalo Amaral did not want to speak for himself in court? Maybe you should ask yourself why he changed lawyers.
Do you really believe that Gonçalo Amaral did not want to speak for himself in court? Maybe you should ask yourself why he changed lawyers.Why did he change lawyers I ask myself....was it because the other one was no good and forgot to appeal the judgment not to allow Goncalo to reveal his ace? Is that the correct answer?
Because he couldn't afford the old one.
Because he couldn't afford the old one.
Wrong, stupid answer!So Goncalo's not broke then and can afford a lawyer? that's good to know. I hope he's paid the other fella by now.
So Goncalo's not broke then and can afford a lawyer? that's good to know. I hope he's paid the other fella by now.
Wrong, stupid answer!
He hasn't paid the last lawyer and has been begging for money on the internet. I think it's pretty obvious why he changed lawyers, nothing to do with not speaking in court. If he had wanted to speak, he should have appealed. That's not the lawyer's fault, it's his. Blaming his lawyer is just another sign (one of many) that he is losing, and losing badly.
1.50 to 1.51 on the video outside The Court. Someone appears to be taking a photo of the hecklers from behind Kate and Gerry.
Oh yes, here she is.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/Capture.jpg)
Oh yes, here she is.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/Capture.jpg)
Taking photos of hecklers.
Why would you need to do that ?
Taking photos of hecklers.
Why would you need to do that ?
So you think she's a heckler? Cheers for confirming that 8((()*/
Bring the video forward to where she is at Gerry's shoulder and you can see the cell phone camera. It's an iPhone by the look of it
Video here
http://news.sky.com/story/1296995/mccanns-son-asked-about-madeleine-claims
About 1.49 mins, is when she is behind Gerry.
Video hereThat heckler sounded like a drunk. Quite pathetic really, is that representative of the level of support Amaral enjoys these days?
http://news.sky.com/story/1296995/mccanns-son-asked-about-madeleine-claims
About 1.49 mins, is when she is behind Gerry.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/Capture.jpg)
That heckler sounded like a drunk. Quite pathetic really, is that representative of the level of support Amaral enjoys these days?
Did Isabel Duarte walk behind the Drs McCann from right to left; then back; the person with the iphone appeared and took the photograph; immediately the woman I think may resemble ID passed as if going to the 'photographer'.
Do you really believe that Gonçalo Amaral did not want to speak for himself in court? Maybe you should ask yourself why he changed lawyers. Also, you should ask yourself why the McCanns have further delayed the trial until September.
Heard it over the radio on coach to school. How would he read that?
Imagine being an 8-year-old faced with other kids on the school bus who were hearing allegations about your parents concerning your missing sister via the radio. 8(8-))
Something they will have to live with. Their parents courted publicity and have become notorious as a consequence.
if the mcanns had not gone after ga they wouldnt have to hear about it
Report from the Palácio de Justiça
by Joana Morais
8th of July 2014
(http://i.imgur.com/KWsUaWc.jpg)
Intervenient parts
Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro presiding the trial
Dr. Miguel Rodrigues for Gonçalo Amaral, the book author
Dr. Fátima de Oliveira Esteves for Guerra e Paz, the book publishers of ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’
Dr Miguel Coroadinha for TVI, the Portuguese TV channel that broadcast the documentary ‘Maddie, What lies beneath the Truth’
Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto for Valentim de Carvalho Filmes who produced the documentary and DVD copies with the same documentary that were never sold
Dr. Isabel Duarte for the McCann couple and their children, the claimants
What follows is the recount of what happened yesterday at court, to the best of my knowledge and short handwritten notes.
The Judge at beginning of hearing sessions spoke and instructed the scribe about the request that had been made by Gonçalo Amaral’s previous lawyer so the defendant could be heard in court. That request was opposed by the McCann couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, and had been previously denied by the Judge in 2013.
The McCann couple, who had also requested to be heard in court, saw their application being refused as well. Yet they pleaded against that decision to the Appeals court and their request was granted, therefore they were now authorized to be heard in court, which is what takes place after this “introductory” instruction by the lady Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro.
The Judge then added that since Gonçalo Amaral’s former lawyer did not oppose to the ruling - which refused his request to be heard - a new appeal opposing the ruling could no longer be accepted, and therefore that decision had now become final.
The judge continues instructing the scribe and states that the authors of the lawsuit - the McCann couple - have requested the court to solicit an official application to ATA [Autoridade Tributária Aduaneira] i.e. the Portuguese equivalent to the IRS, in order to obtain confidential fiscal information.
The Judge authorized and ordered for the dispatch to be prepared “since it is essential to know, within the scope of the case being analysed here at the court, what are the eventual earnings” of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral regarding the sales of the book ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’.
The Judge then added that the court dismissed the need to observe the confidentiality of that fiscal information in view of the fact that “the acquirement of that evidence” is crucial and ruled that the other defendant parties have 10 days to oppose the McCann’s lawyer request.
Earlier on this year, the only defendant party opposing the McCann’s fiscal request was the lawyer for the Guerra e Paz book publishers who argued that this new application would cause an unnecessary lengthening of the trial.
Follows Kate Healy and Gerry McCann declarations to court in strict compliance to Portuguese law. A declaration is a series of answers to questions put by the Judge, and of questions from the accusation or/and defendant lawyers.
The couple decided to ask to make a further statement at the end of each declaration, these statements will not be considered and will have no reflection on the trial outcome even though they were recorded by the scribe.
ongoing
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/palacio-de-justica-8th-of-july-2014.html
So a victim impact statement is allowed to be made in a Portuguese court and is recorded in the official court record but nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them. Sounds judicious.
Brietta
Dont forget, that is a Joana Morais write up.
Then why link to her blog a few days ago ?
Erm... according to Martin Brunt's report and someone else's, when Gerry mentioned the dogs, the judge apparently pointed out that the trial was not about determining what had happened to Madeleine.
Unless written submissions disputing the content of his allegations are allowed (which isn't quite clear to me so far), the trial seems to have been about the alleged negative (defamatory) impact of whatever he has stated (true, false, hearsay, partially true/false) has had on the search for Madeleine and on the family as a whole.
Does not make one blind bit of difference to my opinion that Joana Morais is a mine of disinformation and the source of many misconceptions regarding Madeleine’s case who has worked assiduously at flooding the web with her interpretation of events if I link to her.
Just as I have linked to quotes directly from Dr Amaral.
What is your problem? I thought you were avid in your approval of both entities.
Yes, it basically says it isn't a Libel Trial.
defamation is libel...if it isnt a libel trial...what do you think it is...it strikes me the mccanns are so far ahead some posters are in total denial
From what I read, but with no confirmation, the judge told Gerry that the trial was not about the contents of the book but about its existence.
So, the Judge has ordered the Portuguese taxman to look into Amaral's affairs in order to establish just how much money he made from the book. Now, would she really be doing this if she wasn't preparing to make judgment against him? (The answer is no, for the hard of thinking).
It's also clear evidence that the Judge doesn't trust Amaral to give an honest account of his affairs himself, if she feels the need to involve third parties to investigate him. @)(++(*
McCanns allowed to give victim impact statements to help Judge quantify damages. Judge interested enough in what Kate had to say to listen for almost an hour. Judge tells Gerry he doesn't need to go into detail about what happened that night since there is no need for him to prove anything, only to help quantify how badly Amaral has affected the family. Judge doesn't trust Amaral to give honest account of his affairs so has ordered Portuguese tax officials to investigate him and report back. Full details of Amaral's financial affairs required in order to establish just how much Amaral will be ordered to pay.
What i find ASTONISHING, as they are taking this man to trial over a book he wrote about the case but GMC hasnt even READ IT, only translated bits.
Well surely unless you read it in its entirety how can you make statements about it?
A translation is only as good as the translator.
The libel trail:
GMC says that he read translated parts. After that a translation was available
but he doesnt say he actually went on to read the book.....
So, the Judge has ordered the Portuguese taxman to look into Amaral's affairs in order to establish just how much money he made from the book. Now, would she really be doing this if she wasn't preparing to make judgment against him? (The answer is no, for the hard of thinking).
It's also clear evidence that the Judge doesn't trust Amaral to give an honest account of his affairs himself, if she feels the need to involve third parties to investigate him. @)(++(*
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
Therefore the hearing scheduled for this afternoon (Dra Duarte) and the hearing on the 10th (the defence lawyers) will have to be postponed. Sine die, because of
1) the tribunal holidays (starting on 16 of July and ending on 31 of August) and
2) A new judiciary organization that will be implemented in the whole country in the beginning of September. http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Kate_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
Does anyone know what this means?
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.Probably means they'll have to start all over again. Or further interminable delays.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
Therefore the hearing scheduled for this afternoon (Dra Duarte) and the hearing on the 10th (the defence lawyers) will have to be postponed. Sine die, because of
1) the tribunal holidays (starting on 16 of July and ending on 31 of August) and
2) A new judiciary organization that will be implemented in the whole country in the beginning of September. http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Kate_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
Does anyone know what this means?
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
Therefore the hearing scheduled for this afternoon (Dra Duarte) and the hearing on the 10th (the defence lawyers) will have to be postponed. Sine die, because of
1) the tribunal holidays (starting on 16 of July and ending on 31 of August) and
2) A new judiciary organization that will be implemented in the whole country in the beginning of September. http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Kate_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
Does anyone know what this means?
Is this what Amaral has been stalling for?
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
Therefore the hearing scheduled for this afternoon (Dra Duarte) and the hearing on the 10th (the defence lawyers) will have to be postponed. Sine die, because of
1) the tribunal holidays (starting on 16 of July and ending on 31 of August) and
2) A new judiciary organization that will be implemented in the whole country in the beginning of September. http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Kate_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
Does anyone know what this means?
So Gerry wasn't told to shut up, in court . What a difference a couple of deliberate alterations make 8()(((@#
There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.
The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
And so it ended
So big headed gerry mccann tries to dominate proceedings.
No change there then.
This has been a good example of how things are taken by McCann "sceptics", and twisted to suit their agenda. A simple court interruption by the judge to clarify her role in the proceedings and to explain why Gerry's point about the dogs was not relevant at this point is twisted into the judge telling Gerry to be quiet and supposedly completely and wondrously humiliating him. Why do it?
We can also conclude Gerry wasn't told to 'shut up' by the judge as Morais tweeted yesterday.
Seems quite a lot of her report is wrong. She isn't Mark Simm, by any chance?
The judge did not tell him literally to "shut up" but she did interrupt him and did not let him continue speaking. She also told him that whatever he said would not be taken into consideration. He was only there to answer questions not to give a statement.
Would that be Mark Simm, admin! aka???
It was humiliating for Gerry and the judge put him in place by reminding him that he was not running the show and it was not him who decided what they were going to talk about. BTW, I simply don't understand why he brought up the dogs.I don't see the judge reminding Gerry he was not running the show. I don't see humiliation, but you do, why?
I don't see the judge reminding Gerry he was not running the show. I don't see humiliation, but you do, why?
....So as it turns out I was correct on two counts.
This was not a victim statement- they went above the judge's head to get their oar in! for that pesky Media 'they so hate'
The judge made sure they knew (whether they understood this or not beggars belief) That SHE was asking the questions!
She also reminded the Team that this is not a criminal or Libel trial - this was about their 'suffering due to Amarals book'
And what mother would say that although she felt bad about her 3 year old daughter being'abuducted' the book made it mush much worse..
So tell me.. really, how can words in a book be worse than having your 3 year old daughter 'abducted' by-'gypsies, thieves, paedophiles to be raped and tortured then murdered'(?)
No seriously can you really imagine anything worse that that happening to your daughter?
Well, the judge heard for herself:
1. Kate did have something to make her pain worse.
2.Kate was not suffering from Depression (clinical or other wise).
.So as it turns out I was correct on two counts.
This was not a victim statement- they went above the judge's head to get their oar in! for that pesky Media 'they so hate'
The judge made sure they knew (whether they understood this or not beggars belief) That SHE was asking the questions!
She also reminded the Team that this is not a criminal or Libel trial - this was about their 'suffering due to Amarals book'
And what mother would say that although she felt bad about her 3 year old daughter being'abuducted' the book made it mush much worse..
So tell me.. really, how can words in a book be worse than having your 3 year old daughter 'abducted' by-'gypsies, theives, paedophiles to be raped and tortured then murdered'(?)
No seriously can you really imagine anything worse that that happening to your daughter?
Well, the judge heard for herself:
1. Kate did have something to make her pain worse.
2.Kate was not suffering from Depression (clinical or other wise).
Does this post tell lies? make upstories? persoanlly attack anyone.. NO it is stating facts!
Things some people just can't seem to handle on this forum.
I want justice for Maddie- if that means challenging everyone I WILL.
What do those peeps here, who claim that Eddie was alerting to blood from irrelevant peeps' shaving cuts etc, make of this apparent insistence that he was not alerting to blood at all ?
Meanwhile gerry mccann clearly thinks the dogs did have value in the apartment.
Otherwise why did he try to bring it up in court, before being slapped down by the judge ?
The judge did not tell him literally to "shut up" but she did interrupt him and did not let him continue speaking. She also told him that whatever he said would not be taken into consideration. He was only there to answer questions not to give a statement.
To argue that truth or its absence is irrelevant to libel is a bit like arguing that sperm is irrelevant to pregnancy ...
Why don't you take that up with the judge. Perhaps you have finally realised that this trial is not about libel but about damages?
Why don't you take that up with the judge. Perhaps you have finally realised that this trial is not about libel but about damages?Damage to the search for Madeleine can only be said to have occurred if lies were told in the first place, do you not agree?
Why don't you take that up with the judge. Perhaps you have finally realised that this trial is not about libel but about damages?
Damage to the search for Madeleine can only be said to have occurred if lies were told in the first place, do you not agree?
damages for what...if amaral told the truth there are no damages..if not it is libel..you are in denial
Damage to the search.
Yes, of that there is no doubt & they have proven the search has been damaged because Kate said that she heard that someone heard that some people in a coffee shop were talking about Maddie being dead.
Good question.
it seems like pure desperation.
That he was not alerting to Madeleine's blood ...
Have you not yet read the transcript of the judge's questions to Gerry McCann? Talk about denial! You will not even admit that you were wrong about the reason for the trial. The judge made it clear when she told Gerry that it was not about whether the book was true or not, but about offence to the plaintiffs. That is why the McCanns decided to go to a civil court because that way they would not have had to prove that Gonçalo Amaral wrote lies.
So the judge made it clear that the mccanns do not have to show that anything in amarals book is wrong. they just have to quantify how much damage the book has done to them and their family so taht the judge can quantify the damages...does anyone need anymore proof that amaral has lost
The parents had to prove that they suffered offence and damages from the book but, it is obvious, that they failed. They were unable to prove that they suffered from depression, insomnia, etc. No medical proof whatsoever. There were three other books written about the case in Portugal and these books didn't bother the McCanns? Maybe the difference is that the other books didn't make as much money. The judge did ask Gerry McCann if he knew about the other books, so she must have done her homework.
The parents had to prove that they suffered offence and damages from the book but, it is obvious, that they failed. They were unable to prove that they suffered from depression, insomnia, etc. No medical proof whatsoever. There were three other books written about the case in Portugal and these books didn't bother the McCanns? Maybe the difference is that the other books didn't make as much money. The judge did ask Gerry McCann if he knew about the other books, so she must have done her homework.
The parents had to prove that they suffered offence and damages from the book but, it is obvious, that they failed. They were unable to prove that they suffered from depression, insomnia, etc. No medical proof whatsoever. There were three other books written about the case in Portugal and these books didn't bother the McCanns? Maybe the difference is that the other books didn't make as much money. The judge did ask Gerry McCann if he knew about the other books, so she must have done her homework.
Kate Healy
"We have people that monitor the internet"
@)(++(*
We'd never have guessed.
So you know what the judge has decided...it is obvious the book caused distress..it is the only book which accuses the mccanns directly...other books are no defence...then we have defamation...again obvious..
stay in denial...amaral has lost....compensation will be paid...lets see what excuses you post then
No one knows what the judge is going to decide. The book might have annoyed them, made them angry but that is not severe distress or damage. They have failed miserably to prove that they have suffered irreparable damages or social destruction. Their witnesses only gave hearsay, no doctors to testify or medical certificates to prove their state of mind. Gerry even said to the press after the hearing that the twins were doing fine.
As I have said ... we have the benefit of being able to read the transcript which I imagine will mirror the official court report, and the original tweets from the court have been proved way off line and the result of wishful thinking as they bear no relation to what actually went on.
It is interesting that Dr Gerry McCann's testimony has been held up for particular censure. Is that to deflect from the judge's intense questioning of Dr Kate McCann which in my opinion was extremely sympathetic.
Going on that sympathetic questioning I rather think the judge has a good idea of exactly what Dr McCann is going through and I hope the law allows her to find on that.
What do those peeps here, who claim that Eddie was alerting to blood from irrelevant peeps' shaving cuts etc, make of this apparent insistence that he was not alerting to blood at all ?
The parents had to prove that they suffered offence and damages from the book but, it is obvious, that they failed. They were unable to prove that they suffered from depression, insomnia, etc. No medical proof whatsoever. There were three other books written about the case in Portugal and these books didn't bother the McCanns? Maybe the difference is that the other books didn't make as much money. The judge did ask Gerry McCann if he knew about the other books, so she must have done her homework.
I think one of the most pertinent questions of the whole trial, which hasn't I believe been asked yet, is if the book did have the psychological impact the McCanns claim why was there no evidence from any psychologist or indeed their own doctor to prove this ?
I think one of the most pertinent questions of the whole trial, which hasn't I believe been asked yet, is if the book did have the psychological impact the McCanns claim why was there no evidence from any psychologist or indeed their own doctor to prove this ?
You only have to look at poor Kates face to know that she has been dreadfully damaged.
I am surprised that you cant see that?
I'm sure she is dreadfully damaged sadie. The death of a child, especially a death that you would have been able to stop had you been there, must weigh heavy on even the hardest heart.
A point that I happen to agree with Montclair about is that it doesn't appear to be a libel trial in a UK sense. From what I can gather, whether what the defendants have stated/published/broadcast/distributed is true or not is irrelevant. The issue seems to be whether whatever has been stated has damaged the family's rights or not.
When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.
Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?
When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.
Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?
I'm sure she is dreadfully damaged sadie. The death of a child, especially a death that you would have been able to stop had you been there, must weigh heavy on even the hardest heart.
Wow, thanks for that. So simple.
"Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation."
Obviously The Book Injunction Trial only addressed the right of Goncalo Amaral.
It raises an important point as to whether Mr Amaral's rights have been infringed by the McCanns when they make the claims they do against him? The longer this goes on the more bizarre it becomes imo.
It raises an important point as to whether Mr Amaral's rights have been infringed by the McCanns when they make the claims they do against him? The longer this goes on the more bizarre it becomes imo.
@Admin
Can you apply for court transcripts from Portuguese courts?
It may have been the Judge 'guestured' for him to be quiet as in a hand movement perhaps?
She certainly didn't let him have his own way.
Anyway, It was good to know that this was NOT a criminal trial and Team McC's were not running the 'show'!
Suppose, hypothetically, that Amaral had accused the McCanns of boiling new-born babies alive in some sort of Satanic ritual.
If the allegation is true, then the McCanns are monsters and should be locked up. Amaral would not have libelled them by making the claim.
But if the allegation is untrue then Amaral has libelled them and there should be a legal judgment against Amaral for libel.
In all countries (that have libel laws) questions of truth or untruth matter (to arrive at a judgment that libel, either has been committed, or has not).
To claim that truth or untruth doesn't matter is plain barking.
It raises an important point as to whether Mr Amaral's rights have been infringed by the McCanns when they make the claims they do against him? The longer this goes on the more bizarre it becomes imo.
I wouldn't have thought so. This is a Court of Law. The McCanns have a legal right make their claim, and Amaral has a legal right to question that claim.
The person in the middle in the shape of a Judge is the one who will decide for one or other. Plus of course, the extent and amount of compensation, if any.
That might be the difficult bit.
But it has to be established in a court of Law that Goncalo amaral has actually done this.
Truth or untruth doesn't seem to be what this case is about, though. It seems to concern whether whatever was alleged has caused damage to the family's rights (to finding Madeleine, to the McCanns against whom there is no evidence of a crime perpetrated by them, to the twins having to deal with accusations against their parents and the assertion that their sister is dead).
When interrupting Gerry McCann after his claim that the dogs never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour the honourable judge counselled that we are not here to ascertain that as that is the job for the forensic experts, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
She added that we are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute for the criminal investigation.
Has this not already been determined by the Appeal Court following the reversal of the book injunction?
I think, maybe, the judge is taking it as a 'given' that Amaral has.
The question, now, is to determine what impact those (proven untrue!) allegations have had on the McCanns.
For a book sold in vast numbers and a video seen by hundreds of thousands or millions, quite considerable, I would have thought ...
I think you are inadvertently muddying the waters..the family have the right to a good name....amaral has damaged that ...that's libel....there are other points too but I fail to see how anyone can not see that amaral has defamed the mccanns
I think you are inadvertently muddying the waters..the family have the right to a good name....amaral has damaged that ...that's libel....there are other points too but I fail to see how anyone can not see that amaral has defamed the mccanns
I think you are inadvertently muddying the waters..the family have the right to a good name....amaral has damaged that ...that's libel....there are other points too but I fail to see how anyone can not see that amaral has defamed the mccanns
Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral shared a link.
35 minutes ago
Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists don’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not reported correctly.
Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:
- Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;
- Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;
- Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.
This is what is at stake.
Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.
With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigateanything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.
Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.
Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.
Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by theirarguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!
Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish -, and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.
However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.
All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.
The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.
They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.
Thank you very much,
Lisboa July 21st, 2014
Gonçalo Amaral
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
that statement does rather stand out doesn't itHilarious that his own publisher clearly thinks the book's a crock. @)(++(*
What scandalous misuse of the word "earned" by Isabel Duarte's deputy ...
That's not a direct quote, though. The issue is "gained", whatever the term used.
'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'
Key words indeed.
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
She said it all. Finally.Even if the McCanns lose the case it will all have been worth quite a lot to have had that admission at least.
Even if the McCanns lose the case it will all have been worth quite a lot to have had that admission at least.
Just to balance!
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.
Just to balance!
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.
That was clear too.. Madeleine was abducted..
Please, you do know that this "quote" is from the Daily Mail who was either sloppy or deliberate in their misunderstanding of what the lawyer said.
Just to balance!
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.
But she added: 'The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared.
... since what is being argued at the trial is the “lawfulness or unlawfulness of the book I wrote and, and if so, whether it is possible to establish a causality link between the book and the possible damages they allege to have suffered”.
Boils down to a simple question.
Is libel (proven and established!) lawful or unlawful?
So far as I am aware, it is unlawful ...
PS:
Anyone who thinks that (proven and established!) libel that falsely accuses the McCanns of causing the death of their daughter, then fabricating a 'coverup' doesn't damage the search for Madeleine is an idiot ...
Did you see my post? Or do you prefer to ignore it? DM doesn't understand irony or prefers to pretend they don't understand. The lawyer for Guerra & Paz was being ironic when she said that. Don't be too disappointed.
Montclair, just to clarify then - Ms Esteves was joking when she said (in court) "Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book. "
Hmmm.
Thanks to Astra.
Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, lawyer for Goncalo Amaral, Lisbon 2014:
' lack of cooperation from the couple and their friends led to the shelving of the case, a shelving that they never opposed, as they could have done'
So that puts that little nugget to bed once and for all.
Who is "Astro"? An independent Journalist or court reporter? And who is Panalam? Is the site an impartial source of information?
Who is "Astro"? An independent Journalist or court reporter? And who is Panalam? Is the site an impartial source of information?