UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on September 16, 2013, 06:28:36 PM
-
Why, when the McCanns are the individuals best placed to describe the damage done to their family, the search and their reputation, are neither of them taking the witness stand ?
Surely emotive, firsthand testimony would have had a much greater impact than the second-hand, hearsay evidence we have seen already ?
-
Why, when the McCanns are the individuals best placed to describe the damage done to their family, the search and their reputation, are neither of them taking the witness stand ?
Surely emotive, firsthand testimony would have had a much greater impact than the second-hand, hearsay evidence we have seen already ?
Good question...seems awfully surreal at best.....
-
Why, when the McCanns are the individuals best placed to describe the damage done to their family, the search and their reputation, are neither of them taking the witness stand ?
Surely emotive, firsthand testimony would have had a much greater impact than the second-hand, hearsay evidence we have seen already ?
Both Kate and Gerry are still terribly scarred by the abduction and loss of Madeleine. have you seen what barristers do to witnesses. Plus....they don't have to ...their case is strong enough...plus I don't think amaral is taking the stand either
-
Good question...seems awfully surreal at best.....
Absolutely Red, especially as the witnesses they have called's evidence has seemed to have been not only weak but coloured by subjective opinion borne out by not one iota of statistical data.
-
Witnesses who give 'hearsay' testimony might be relating something untruthful ... but if, as far as they are aware, they are relating the truth, then no charge of perjury can be brought ( they are merely reporting what someone else claimed to be the truth )
Therefore, as you suggest, hearsay testimony is of little evidential value
It is no real surprise though, the McCanns have always employed others to speak on their behalf
-
Absolutely Red, especially as the witnesses they have called's evidence has seemed to have been not only weak but coloured by subjective opinion borne out by not one iota of statistical data.
Quite
Not to mention false imaginings....Emma Loach said when asked if the book was published in England she said she saw it in the shops Lol...got to run, laters
-
Does anyone know if Amaral will be testifying?
-
Does anyone know if Amaral will be testifying?
I'm not sure I see the relevance of the question Carana, in the context of this thread
The point has been made that the witnesses produced by the McCanns have spoken about the devastation and anguish they ( the McCanns ) suffered as a result of Amaral's book
The truth is, of course, that no-one can adequately express the feelings experienced by others, and, therefore, had the McCanns described their own emotional reactions ( rather than have someone else do it for them ) the testimony would be bound to have more relevance and impact
You must agree with that, surely ?
-
I'm not sure I see the relevance of the question Carana, in the context of this thread
The point has been made that the witnesses produced by the McCanns have spoken about the devastation and anguish they ( the McCanns ) suffered as a result of Amaral's book
The truth is, of course, that no-one can adequately express the feelings experienced by others, and, therefore, had the McCanns described their own emotional reactions ( rather than have someone else do it for them ) the testimony would be bound to have more relevance and impact
You must agree with that, surely ?
I would agree 100% with that statement ..but
it would be too traumatic
They obviously feel they don't need to
simple
-
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
In their own wordas they have moved on and lead a normal life and are content and happy
They had no problem giving evidence in leveson, or the parliamentary committee, or speaking at the eu, or speaking at lawyers conferences, or making documentaries, sitting on gmtv and sky and oprah sofas, giving endless *defiant* interviews and the rest, purleeese, dont play that defunct too weak to give evidence card, its lame as is bringing in mates family and others to speak for them when they havent a clue really what they were talking about and / or was so irrelvant
-
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
In their own wordas they have moved on and lead a normal life and are content and happy
They had no problem giving evidence in leveson, or the parliamentary committee, or speaking at the eu, or speaking at lawyers conferences, or making documentaries, sitting on gmtv and sky and oprah sofas, giving endless *defiant* interviews and the rest, purleeese, dont play that defunct too weak to give evidence card, its lame as is bringing in mates family and others to speak for them when they havent a clue really what they were talking about and / or was so irrelvant
You make an excellent point there, Red
-
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
In their own wordas they have moved on and lead a normal life and are content and happy
They had no problem giving evidence in leveson, or the parliamentary committee, or speaking at the eu, or speaking at lawyers conferences, or making documentaries, sitting on gmtv and sky and oprah sofas, giving endless *defiant* interviews and the rest, purleeese, dont play that defunct too weak to give evidence card, its lame as is bringing in mates family and others to speak for them when they havent a clue really what they were talking about and / or was so irrelvant
Who was it who said in the last couple of days.."Kate looks more fragile than ever"
Seen weeping in court
Leveson setc were on the side, they were treated gently. Obviously you have no knowledge of adversarial court proceedings. You just cant bear to accept something that is so obvious
-
Who was it who said in the last couple of days.."Kate looks more fragile than ever"
Seen weeping in court
Leveson setc were on the side, they were treated gently. Obviously you have no knowledge of adversarial court proceedings. You just cant bear to accept something that is so obvious
'Leveson setc were on the side'
Leverson was supposed to be impartial. >@@(*&)
-
Who was it who said in the last couple of days.."Kate looks more fragile than ever"
Seen weeping in court
Leveson setc were on the side, they were treated gently. Obviously you have no knowledge of adversarial court proceedings. You just cant bear to accept something that is so obvious
What's obvious davel?
-
'Leveson setc were on the side'
Leverson was supposed to be impartial. >@@(*&)
ie they were shown sympathy..it was not adversarial
-
ie they were shown sympathy..it was not adversarial
It was Madeleine who deserved the sympathy.
it was parents who are directly responsible for what happened to her.
-
You make an excellent point there, Red
Thank you its true, it seems Kate Mccann can change her face to suit like a chameleon at will to suit the occasion, i find that disconcerting
papers may write she wept in court, but no one saw her doing any such thing....pfffft
She was laughing her head off a few weeks ago on itv happy as larry
Whatever
-
ie they were shown sympathy..it was not adversarial
Nail on head anything adversarial they would be in meltdown in 2.4 seconds,,, and no.... Not because they lost their child and couldnt cope especially after nearly 7 years because IMO they have not told the truth...they always seem to be hiding behind something or someone and never spoken openly honestly, for themselves, THATS why people dontbelieve them..and they got so uppity when some interviewers did ask them awkward questions......and its NOTHING to do with amaral!!!!! And why after nearly seven yrs are they still paying a professional spokesman? Pfffft cant they speak for themselves?
-
You make an excellent point there, Red
She does indeed Icabod.
-
What's obvious davel?
That Kate wouldnt last 1 minute in the witness box before breaking down
-
Nail on head anything adversarial they would be in meltdown in 2.4 seconds,,, and no.... Not because they lost their child and couldnt cope especially after nearly 7 years because IMO they have not told the truth...they always seem to be hiding behind something or someone and never spoken openly honestly, for themselves, THATS why people dontbelieve them..and they got so uppity when some interviewers did ask them awkward questions......and its NOTHING to do with amaral!!!!! And why after nearly seven yrs are they still paying a professional spokesman? Pfffft cant they speak for themselves?
Do you know anyone well, who has lost a child
-
That Kate wouldnt last 1 minute in the witness box before breaking down
Maybe, but there's no way we can know her state in private is there (she must be fit physically, running a marathon). Naturally like anyone else she would be stressed on the first morning arriving at court.
Personally I think she is badly advised to take this course, or irrational if advising herself. You can't stop people writing books. Especially now when they can just be published on the internet.
-
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
In their own wordas they have moved on and lead a normal life and are content and happy
They had no problem giving evidence in leveson, or the parliamentary committee, or speaking at the eu, or speaking at lawyers conferences, or making documentaries, sitting on gmtv and sky and oprah sofas, giving endless *defiant* interviews and the rest, purleeese, dont play that defunct too weak to give evidence card, its lame as is bringing in mates family and others to speak for them when they havent a clue really what they were talking about and / or was so irrelvant
If you knew anything about losing a child you would know that six and a half years is nothing. if you have no sympathy for the McCannS do not trivialise the loss of a child
-
If you knew anything about losing a child you would know that six and a half years is nothing. if you have no sympathy for the McCannS do not trivialise the loss of a child
No one is trivialising the loss of a child, merely pointing out that Kate, and Gerry have spoken publicly many, many times about Madeleine's disappearance so why choose to stay silent now, when it really matters ?
-
No one is trivialising the loss of a child, merely pointing out that Kate, and Gerry have spoken publicly many, many times about Madeleine's disappearance so why choose to stay silent now, when it really matters ?
She posted.......
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
That trivialises the loss of a child...how does she know how long the trauma lasts
-
She posted.......
Traumatised after 6 and a half years?
That trivialises the loss of a child...how does she know how long the trauma lasts
Red was simply pointing out that in their own words the McCanns, after six years, by and large, are dealing with the trauma the loss of their daughter has brought.
Context is everything davel
-
Red was simply pointing out that in their own words the McCanns, after six years, by and large, are dealing with the trauma the loss of their daughter has brought.
Context is everything davel
Traumatised? ..means what trauma... There is no way they will have overcome the trauma of the loss of Maddie
-
There's no witness box. The witness is sitting in front of the first row for the audience, facing the judge. On the right, in a perpendicular row, are 3 lawyers of the defence. On the left is the clerk and, on a perpendicular row, the lawyer of the accusation with her assistant and the lawyer of the 4th defendant.
People are calm and polite. Mrs Duarte might have heard critics about her performance in 2010, she behaves decently (of course up to now the witnesses were "hers"). When Mr McBride was giving evidence, he was welcomed by each of the defence lawyers as a colleague. The Guerra & Paz lawyer, a smiling young lady, has a sweet voice and takes care to make pauses for the interpret to translate.
The judge is obviously determined to do a fair job, this is a crucial point.
-
Traumatised? ..means what trauma... There is no way they will have overcome the trauma of the loss of Maddie
I think the point is that whilst dealing with their undoubted trauma the McCanns have, in the past, managed to cope with many public speaking events
The question is posed, therefore, ... what is different this time ?
-
I think the point is that whilst dealing with their undoubted trauma the McCanns have, in the past, managed to cope with many public speaking events
The question is posed, therefore, ... what is different this time ?
Thank you icab and faithlilly for explaining what i meant
Nite
-
I think the point is that whilst dealing with their undoubted trauma the McCanns have, in the past, managed to cope with many public speaking events
The question is posed, therefore, ... what is different this time ?
I think there is a big difference between chatting on a comfy sofa with Oprah or Richard and Judy, with the questions rehearsed and agreed upon in advance in co-operation with the host, and being tripped up in the witness box by grillers with no mercy.
In addition ,there is another layer of 'trauma' associated with court, namely that so much hangs on the outcome. If things don't go well on a chat show, the consequences aren't normally so profound.
-
I think there is a big difference between chatting on a comfy sofa with Oprah or Richard and Judy, with the questions rehearsed and agreed upon in advance in co-operation with the host, and being tripped up in the witness box by grillers with no mercy.
In addition ,there is another layer of 'trauma' associated with court, namely that so much hangs on the outcome. If things don't go well on a chat show, the consequences aren't normally so profound.
If we make that distinction ... between pre- agreed questioning, and the unpredictable questioning that might happen in a court room ... then we we are not talking about 'trauma' at all, are we ?
We are talking about guile ... and an understanding of what is 'risky' and what is not
Sitting on a couch with Oprah would be every bit as traumatic ( given what the subject being discussed ) ... but nowhere near as risky
-
If we make that distinction ... between pre- agreed questioning, and the unpredictable questioning that might happen in a court room ... then we we are not talking about 'trauma' at all, are we ?
We are talking about guile ... and an understanding of what is 'risky' and what is not
Sitting on a couch with Oprah would be every bit as traumatic ( given what the subject being discussed ) ... but nowhere near as risky
Guile...interesting way of putting it, Icabod.
-
If we make that distinction ... between pre- agreed questioning, and the unpredictable questioning that might happen in a court room ... then we we are not talking about 'trauma' at all, are we ?
We are talking about guile ... and an understanding of what is 'risky' and what is not
Sitting on a couch with Oprah would be every bit as traumatic ( given what the subject being discussed ) ... but nowhere near as risky
no we are talking about trauma...That's the answer to the question but if you don't want to accept it just carry on posting
-
It does seem weird that of the two sides to this action McCann's vs. Amaral - that neither are going to actually be questioned in court ( as being reported )
-
It does seem weird that of the two sides to this action McCann's vs. Amaral - that neither are going to actually be questioned in court ( as being reported )
I completely agree.
I also get the feeling that the outcome of the trial has already been determined.
-
It does seem weird that of the two sides to this action McCann's vs. Amaral - that neither are going to actually be questioned in court ( as being reported )
My sentiments precisely. How can someone claim defamation if they don't even give evidence on their own behalf?? Really weird imo
-
I completely agree.
I also get the feeling that the outcome of the trial has already been determined.
What do you mean it has already been determined?
-
Their witnesses, I must say, reading the reports of what was said in court so far, has yielded nothing solid, in fact they came over as not knowing their facts half the time, and the other half of the time what they were sayng seemed slightly irrelevant, very poor show.....so far
-
Their witnesses, I must say, reading the reports of what was said in court so far, has yielded nothing solid, in fact they came over as not knowing their facts half the time, and the other half of the time what they were sayng seemed slightly irrelevant, very poor show.....so far
on the other hand we have Amarals lawyer declaring that Maddie may still be alive and the judge referring to the McCanns as innocent...sounds as though its going very well to me
-
on the other hand we have Amarals lawyer declaring that Maddie may still be alive and the judge referring to the McCanns as innocent...sounds as though its going very well to me
Youre entitled to your opinions and what his lawyer said amounts to nothing in the circumstances...no one has ever said they KNOW Madeleine is dead.....so that argument falls at the first hurdle
-
Youre entitled to your opinions and what his lawyer said amounts to nothing in the circumstances...no one has ever said they KNOW Madeleine is dead.....so that argument falls at the first hurdle
have you been on the pop already...what about the dogs is all we hear... Amarals book claims Maddie died in the appt..the books called the truth
-
have you been on the pop already...what about the dogs is all we hear... Amarals book claims Maddie died in the appt..the books called the truth
Personal jibe struck out
Amaral said everything he knows points him to that conclusion....he and his team were seasoned policeman and was their right and duty to make any conclusiins they saw fit..fact remains he or no one else said ever as a fact they KNOW Madeleine is dead.....thats the point....which demolishes your one...its THEIR BUSINESS to come to conclusions, not hard to understand
-
amaral being interviewed by flores, from the mccannfiles
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.
GA – Do you doubt it?
MF – No. Neither I nor the older people who used to work with me. When this happened, I was in Greece and I heard the news through an English channel. The story was so badly told, that only a naive or silly person would believe it. As a matter of fact, when I arrived, I had dinner with several already retired colleagues that worked in homicides, and their opinion was the same. The detail about the window killed the version. Nobody passes through that narrow window space carrying a child.
-
amaral being interviewed by flores, from the mccannfiles
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.
GA – Do you doubt it?
MF – No. Neither I nor the older people who used to work with me. When this happened, I was in Greece and I heard the news through an English channel. The story was so badly told, that only a naive or silly person would believe it. As a matter of fact, when I arrived, I had dinner with several already retired colleagues that worked in homicides, and their opinion was the same. The detail about the window killed the version. Nobody passes through that narrow window space carrying a child.
So what?
@)(++(*
SINCE WHEN has it been a crime for policemen to formulate theories, too funny, I suppose they should have just believed what the mccanns told them, LooooL, catch you later!
-
Youre entitled to your opinions and what his lawyer said amounts to nothing in the circumstances...no one has ever said they KNOW Madeleine is dead.....so that argument falls at the first hurdle
would you like to reconsider this statement?
-
would you like to reconsider this statement?
No not really but you carry on, be back later
8((()*/
-
So what?
@)(++(*
SINCE WHEN has it been a crime for policemen to formulate theories, too funny, I suppose they should have just believed what the mccanns told them, LooooL, catch you later!
Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book
-
Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book
His book was called 'The Truth of the Lie' was it not ?
The 'Lie' he is refering to, I presume, is that the missing child was abducted
He claims the McCanns lied when they said their daughter had been abducted, in the same way the McCanns claim that Amaral lied when he said she died in the apartment
No-one knows which claim is truthful
Amaral came to the conclusion that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and that her parents covered it up by staging an abduction. That is his opinion, and it was shared by other senior police officers
The Portuguese constitution allows for opinion to be expressed, and Amaral has used his constitutional right to freedom of expression by writing a book
That is the basis of his defense ... a defense which has already been recognised by the Supreme Court which reversed the injunction on his book
-
His book was called 'The Truth of the Lie' was it not ?
The 'Lie' he is refering to, I presume, is that the missing child was abducted
He claims the McCanns lied when they said their daughter had been abducted, in the same way the McCanns claim that Amaral lied when he said she died in the apartment
No-one knows which claim is truthful
All correct up to now
Amaral came to the conclusion that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and that her parents covered it up by staging an abduction. That is his opinion, and it was shared by other senior police officers
Red has said that no one has said Maddie was dead so thanks for proving her wrong
The Portuguese constitution allows for opinion to be expressed, and Amaral has used his constitutional right to freedom of expression by writing a book
That is the basis of his defense ... a defense which has already been recognised by the Supreme Court which reversed the injunction on his book
This was only an interim judgement and is not binding on this court
So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal
-
Let me clear up a misunderstanding here. The decisions of the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) were INTERIM decisions which merely allowed the book to be sold PENDING the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Lisbon Civil Court, where the trial is now taking place. The Court is free to make whatever decision it concludes is correct, i.e. did Dr Amaral libel the McCanns and thereby cause them a lot of distress? Or not?
Quote from an ex uk solicitor
-
So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal
You appear to misunderstand Portuguese libel law Davel
Amaral does not have to prove that he did not libel the McCanns
The McCanns have to prove that he DID
The onus is on them to provide proof
As far as I can see, they have not done that with any of the witnesses produced so far ( who have spoken only of the emotional distress Amaral's book caused the McCanns )
-
You appear to misunderstand Portuguese libel law Davel
Amaral does not have to prove that he did not libel the McCanns
The McCanns have to prove that he DID
The onus is on them to provide proof
As far as I can see, they have not done that with any of the witnesses produced so far ( who have spoken only of the emotional distress Amaral's book caused the McCanns )
I do understand Portuguese law
we have had this same conversation in the last week..remember
WHAT LEVEL OF PROOF DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE...YOU DONT KNOW
-
I do understand Portuguese law
we have had this same conversation in the last week..remember
WHAT LEVEL OF PROOF DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE...YOU DONT KNOW
Yes, yes ... but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not 'prove' what he had written
Do you accept that he does not have to prove it in order to win this libel case ... and that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance ? ( whatever 'level' of proof that may be )
-
So you accept that amaral has libelled the McCanns by accusing them of something he cannot prove. The Portuguese protects freedom of speech but it has responsibilities.. we have been through this several times...the question none of us know the answer to is what is the level of proof for libel on each party in portugal
Embedded post withtn above post timed
Red has said that no one has said Maddie was dead so thanks for proving her wrong
Pls dont msquote me thanks, my post number 42 said no such thing
-
Nothing wrong in formulating theories but amaral went too far.He called his theories the truth and put them in a book
no not really
-
Yes, yes ... but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not 'prove' what he had written
Do you accept that he does not have to prove it in order to win this libel case ... and that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance ? ( whatever 'level' of proof that may be )
Exactly, if no one knows the truth then no one can be sued, for sayng they believe x y z is the truth, or most likely etc, elementary, the mccanns just CANT prove they have been libelled, its a dead horse from day one
IMO they will be sent away with a flea in their ear like last time and told to grow up and not be greedy or vexatious
-
Yes, yes ... but you said Amaral had libeled the McCanns because he could not 'prove' what he had written
Do you accept that he does not have to prove it in order to win this libel case ... and that the burden of proof lies with the McCanns in this instance ? ( whatever 'level' of proof that may be )
this is what I have been led to believe but where did you get this idea from,, I don't know for a fact what is true..do you
-
Exactly, if no one knows the truth then no one can be sued, for sayng they believe x y z is the truth, or most likely etc, elementary, the mccanns just CANT prove they have been libelled, its a dead horse from day one
IMO they will be sent away with a flea in their ear like last time and told to grow up and not be greedy or vexatious
This certainly is not true in the uk could you tell me why you are so sure it is true in portugal
-
This certainly is not true in the uk could you tell me why you are so sure it is true in portugal
Honestly held opinions in both countries are a defence...end of, now take it up with lawyers as ita in their hands not yours or mine
-
this is what I have been led to believe but where did you get this idea from,, I don't know for a fact what is true..do you
To tell the truth davel, no, I don't know it for a fact
I was lead to believe our fellow member Jean Pierre is something of an expert on Portuguese law, and was going by what he has said with regard to Libel laws there
Perhaps he can confirm ?
-
Honestly held opinions in both countries are a defence...end of, now take it up with lawyers as ita in their hands not yours or mine
You are mistaken, Bennett tried this and was laughed out of court. I don't know what the law is in Portugal and it seems like you don't either yet you post as if you do
-
You are mistaken, Bennett tried this and was laughed out of court. I don't know what the law is in Portugal and it seems like you don't either yet you post as if you do
Dontt know anything about Bennett trial
As for PT law no dont know it either and dont pretend to do but I have read one case decision there where exactly that was given as a defence......thats all!
-
To tell the truth davel, no, I don't know it for a fact
I was lead to believe our fellow member Jean Pierre is something of an expert on Portuguese law, and was going by what he has said with regard to Libel laws there
Perhaps he can confirm ?
I wish someone could confirm, but at least hopefully we will all know in a few weeks.
-
I seems there is a big confusion about the trial case being discussed here.
This is a civil trial case where the claimants are trying to be compensated for damages caused by the publication of a book, TV commentary and CD, according to the Civil Code on civil responsibility - where damages caused even when there was no intent must be compensated if there is proof of a nexus of causality between the fact (event) and the damages substantially/irrefutably proved.
Any compensation for defamation implies a previous conviction that the crime was committed. In this case such crime was not committed according to the Relation and Supreme Court's rulings.
So, this is not if the contents of the book is true or false, defaming or not, but if its publication, even within all the legal rights of freedom of expression, caused any harm and the amount and type of such damage, if any.
-
So now we know the Mccann's were not giving evidence because they weren't allowed to. Thought a Portuguese poster might have verified this earlier then there would've been no need for all the speculation.
Anyone know if Amaral is going to give evidence?
-
So now we know the Mccann's were not giving evidence because they weren't allowed to. Thought a Portuguese poster might have verified this earlier then there would've been no need for all the speculation.
Anyone know if Amaral is going to give evidence?
He should be made to, he made the accusations. Anyway his ace hasn't been played yet, has it? Raised eyebrows!
-
My sentiments precisely. How can someone claim defamation if they don't even give evidence on their own behalf?? Really weird imo
Weirder still, that both Kate and Gerry haven't -so far, been allowed to speak. >@@(*&)
-
Weirder still, that both Kate and Gerry haven't -so far, been allowed to speak. >@@(*&)
How do you know they weren't allowed?
They hadn't requested before to be heard, according to their witnesses list.
Now Mr. McCann woke up and suddenly wants to testify. I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.
-
I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.
I think the Court will, the question is will the defence agree ? I hope so.
-
He should be made to, he made the accusations. Anyway his ace hasn't been played yet, has it? Raised eyebrows!
You must be seeing another movie. It's the McCann that are the plaintiffs.
According to our law, Amaral didn't even need to be present at the Court, as the McCann didn't. The last ones only had to produce proof about their allegations. It's the McCann that have to prove, objectively and behind doubt, that their allegations are true.
-
How do you know they weren't allowed?
They hadn't requested before to be heard, according to their witnesses list.
Now Mr. McCann woke up and suddenly wants to testify. I sincerely hope that the Court allows him to.
there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.
-
there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.
Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?
-
Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?
quite possible but it will show an awful lack of confidence from amaral....seeing his supporters have claimed that the McCanns would never go in the witness box
-
there has been a change in the law. under the old system the Mccanns were not able to give evidence.The problem is that this case was started under the old system so the MccANS now have to ask permission from the judge and the defence for them to give evidence. lets hope they are allowed to.
Exactly. And let's hope that Mr. and Mrs. McCann are allowed to be heard in Court, even though the law has changed after the case has been submitted.
It feels nice that finally we agree on something.
-
Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?
McCann had every opportunity to be a witness before.
He's only trying to appear now because their case has fallen apart at the seams.
Personally, if I was any of the 4 defendants, yes remember 4, not just Amaral, I would tell Mccann very politely where to go.
-
Whats the betting, Amaral's lawyer refuses that permission?
I'll take you up on that bet. I think if anyone refuses it'll be the judge.
The one thing everybody on this forum seems to be united on is that Gerry McCann testifying is a good thing.
-
McCann had every opportunity to be a witness before.
He's only trying to appear now because their case has fallen apart at the seams.
Personally, if I was any of the 4 defendants, yes remember 4, not just Amaral, I would tell Mccann very politely where to go.
I hope none of the 4 waste the chance to have Mr. McCann, under oath, in a witness box.
Perjury is crime and is penalized with prison sentence - it will / would be nice to hear some truth after six years.
-
I hope none of the 4 waste the chance to have Mr. McCann, under oath, in a witness box.
Agree 100%
-
I'll take you up on that bet. I think if anyone refuses it'll be the judge.
The one thing everybody on this forum seems to be united on is that Gerry McCann testifying is a good thing.
Yes. Let's hope for it.
-
I hope none of the 4 waste the chance to have Mr. McCann, under oath, in a witness box.
Perjury is crime and is penalized with prison sentence - it will / would be nice to hear some truth after six years.
Perhaps you're right Luz.
His arrogant stupidity won't do the 'cause' any good, and no Mitchell to control the questions.
He'll lose it.
-
Perhaps you're right Luz.
His arrogant stupidity won't do the 'cause' any good, and no Mitchell to control the questions.
He'll lose it.
If we take it from the previous witnesses, it was obvious they were advised not to lie (too much). So I suppose that Mr. & Mrs. will be advised of the same.
Care to bet that they will manage to escape giving testimony under oath?
-
This is as if you had a tree in your garden and there was a strong wind that made it fall on your neighbour's car. You would be called to pay damages.
What the McCann are requiring is that Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho & Guerra e Paz pay the damage "your tree" caused to your "neighbour's car" (figuratively)
-
This is as if you had a tree in your garden and there was a strong wind that made it fall on your neighbour's car. You would be called to pay damages.
What the McCann are requiring is that Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho & Guerra e Paz pay the damage "your tree" caused to your "neighbour's car" (figuratively)
That would be negligence.
-
This is not about libel - if the book is not defamatory there is no LIBEL.
This is about MONEY, as Isabel Duarte said in the first day when interrogated by the journalists.
But it is defamatory though, isn't it Luz? Suggesting that a couple who weren't even arrested, never mind charged or convicted, refrigerated their little girl's remains then transported them in a car when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove it? I'd call that one bloody defamatory, missus!
-
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3832-gonc-s-debts-and-brothers-court-case
English and Portuguese doc's. Stamped and signed by the court.
By the way its Brazil, and if you think thats where Marcos is, you are more deluded than I thought.
As there has been no response, I take it this document is not fake and Marcos Aragăo Correia did not escape to Brazil. Just out of interest if he had have escaped to Brazil from who and what would he actually have been escaping from ?
-
In the light of recent events, I wonder if Faith regrets beginning this thread? ...
-
In the light of recent events, I wonder if Faith regrets beginning this thread? ...
Not in the least ferryman. In fact it may have been this, as well as several other discussions concerning the failure by the McCanns to testify, that has spurred Gerry on to take this rather transparent course of action.
And please don't deny that 'the family' read these forums as we now know from Michael Wright that they most certainly do.
-
«The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence."»
Has this been posted on the forum? Trying to find it with no luck.
-
Not in the least ferryman. In fact it may have been this, as well as several other discussions concerning the failure by the McCanns to testify, that has spurred Gerry on to take this rather transparent course of action.
And please don't deny that 'the family' read these forums as we now know from Michael Wright that they most certainly do.
It could be I suppose ... or it might be that the witnesses who have appeared so far have been so piss-poor that Isabel Duarte has roped Gerry in out of desperation
Seriously ... the McCann witnesses have been dire ! ... what purpose have they served ? ( I'm not seeing it at all )
-
It could be I suppose ... or it might be that the witnesses who have appeared so far have been so piss-poor that Isabel Duarte has roped Gerry in out of desperation
Seriously ... the McCann witnesses have been dire ! ... what purpose have they served ? ( I'm not seeing it at all )
Or it could be that Isabel Duarte is not so happy to see the hot headed Gerry in a witness stand and that he came on his own to try to save a desparate situation.
-
«The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence."»
Has this been posted on the forum? Trying to find it with no luck.
Very strange that two witnesses have chosen not to put themselves through the ordeal of testifying?? Does anyone know who they are per chance? One of the tapas group perhaps??
-
Very strange that two witnesses have chosen not to put themselves through the ordeal of testifying?? Does anyone know who they are per chance? One of the tapas group perhaps??
One of them could be Mrs Healy.
-
Why WAS Gerry in Portugal?? - Joana Morais
.
Why was Gerry McCann in Portugal?
30 September 2013 | Posted by Joana Morais Leave a Comment
Gerry McCann and one of the McCanns Portuguese lawyers, Isabel Duarte
«Dra Duarte said she made yesterday [26.9.2013] a request for the complainant G. McCann who is coming from the UK (she insisted twice on this) to be heard.» Anna Guedes report, McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 5, 27 September 2013
«The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: “I can confirm Gerry McCann is hoping to give evidence.”» Daily Star, Jerry Lawton, Madeleine's dad, Gerry McCann jets in to 'help find the truth', 27 September 2013
«The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence."» BBC, Alison Roberts, Gerry McCann ready to testify amid Ł1m libel case delay, 27 September 2013
«The judge agreed to an adjournment because a member of one of the lawyers' families had a medical issue. Mr McCann was told the news as he arrived at the court in Lisbon after an early morning flight from the UK. He headed back to the airport. He said outside court: "Obviously we are disappointed. If I get another opportunity to be heard I will be back and will answer the questions I'm asked.» Sky News, Martin Brunt, Madeleine McCann: Gerry's Evidence Stalled, 27 September 2013
-
All of the points mentioned by Morais have been given a source apart from this one:
The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence
Sorry just been informed by Redblossom it does have a source.
-
All of the points mentioned by Morais have been given a source apart from this one:
The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence
It has, you need to click on the blue text beginning with....BBC Alison Roberts
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-was-gerry-mccann-in-portugal.html
-
Thank you, have edited post.
-
Thank you, have edited post.
NP, youre welcome.
-
Meanwhile Mr McCann and his sister had arrived. The Judge asked to call the two witnesses first Eduardo Dâmaso and later Trish Cameron.
Who is Eduardo Damaso?
-
Meanwhile Mr McCann and his sister had arrived. The Judge asked to call the two witnesses first Eduardo Dâmaso and later Trish Cameron.
Who is Eduardo Damaso?
From Annes write up of last Friday. Think he works for the newspaper C da M but dont know whose witness it is.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2417.msg79135;boardseen#new
The Judge then announced that the 27th witnesses would be heard on the 2nd of October (Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhă), Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst) and Mrs Cameron).
From this I deduce that 1) Mrs Healy will not be heard and 2) Mrs Cameron is the last witness for the accusation, except for the bar association president, Marinho Pinto who eventually will be heard on the 19 of November.
-
NP, youre welcome.
Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst).
-
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 27 Sep
#mccann libel trial will resume on Wednesday Oct 2 - Madeleine's parents seek Ł1m from Amaral over his book claims they covered up her death
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 12m
Gerry #McCann flying to Portugal hoping to give evidence at Ł1m libel trial of ex-cop who alleged he covered up daughter Madeleine's death
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 10m
Also set to give evidence at Lisbon libel trial tomorrow is Kate #McCann mum Susan and Gerry's sister Trish
-
Meanwhile Mr McCann and his sister had arrived. The Judge asked to call the two witnesses first Eduardo Dâmaso and later Trish Cameron.
Who is Eduardo Damaso?
Eduardo Dâmaso is probably another witness that was not directly invited, as happened with Menezes and Melchior. He is a journalist and not favorable towards the McCann's version of events.
Mrs. Duarte is taking advantage of a law in Portugal that obliges anyone being appointed as witnesses to be present in Court - unless you can justify the absence with a medical or very important professional reason.
What Mrs. Duarte attempted to do was to neutralize some potential witnesses to the other part - if you recall, Menezes (and I am not sure about Melchior) was a witness to Amaral on the previous Trial.
However I don't think this strategy is going to produce any fruits. Considering the witnesses on Amaral's side - people that were directly involved in the investigation and people that were involved in the Media exposure of the case - until now, there has not been an ounce of objective proof that the defendants (respondants) harmed either the investigation or the welfare of the family -, I think these witnesses are in a better position to testify that whatever the claimants suffered had nothing to do with the publication of a book, a DVd or a TV documentary.
The McCann weren't appointed as witnesses, I think, because before September, 1st, in these cases the claimants only had to appoint witnesses and submit documents, they were not considered relevant as witnesses since they were subjective parts in the process.
As the law changed they could have been included in the roll, but they were not supposed to appear, according to the UK Media - allegedly by recommendation from the SY. Apparently the situation has changed last 26th and Mrs. Duarte submitted a petition to have Mr. McCann.
Although Mrs. Duarte knew that there was a request from one of the Defense (respondents) lawyers to have a suspension on friday, and that a change of witnesses requested on thursday would take maybe at least 5 days to be answered, Mr. McCann jumped into a plane to be able to express to the UK rags his disappointment for the impossibility to give testimony in Court on Friday.
-
Meanwhile Mr McCann and his sister had arrived. The Judge asked to call the two witnesses first Eduardo Dâmaso and later Trish Cameron.
Who is Eduardo Damaso?
Eduardo Dâmaso is (or certainly was) Editor-in-chief of CdaM.
Correction: it seems he's the deputy editor.
-
Eduardo Dâmaso is (or certainly was) Editor-in-chief of CdaM.
Correction: it seems he's the deputy editor.
I was going by Anne's posting, re the judges announcement, on Friday. But you are correct!
Eduardo Dâmaso, Assistant Editor, Daily Correio da Manhă
"The Judge then announced that the 27th witnesses would be heard on the 2nd of October (Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhă), Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst)"
Seems he is also very much against corruption in Portugal, too.
-
I was going by Anne's posting, re the judges announcement, on Friday. But you are correct!
Eduardo Dâmaso, Assistant Editor, Daily Correio da Manhă
"The Judge then announced that the 27th witnesses would be heard on the 2nd of October (Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhă), Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst)"
Seems he is also very much against corruption in Portugal, too.
Was he the one who made the famous quote likening judicial secrecy to traffic regulations, or was it someone else?
Something along the lines that everyone knows that they exist, but no one takes any notice.
The argument was that if the rules of judicial secrecy were strictly adhered to, there would be no media coverage of ongoing criminal investigations (until a case was brought to court, and the subsequent dissection of whatever documents were made available, presumably).
-
ED was sub-director do DN e do Publico. He's mainly a political analyst and an author on this matter :
http://www.almedina.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=7460
-
Although Mrs. Duarte knew that there was a request from one of the Defense (respondents) lawyers to have a suspension on friday,
Are you sure she did ?
-
Are you sure she did ?
No she didn't, Anne. As you are probably aware of. Luz is doing her usual. >@@(*&)
27 Sep 2013
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.”
-
No she didn't, Anne. As you are probably aware of. Luz is doing her usual. >@@(*&)
27 Sep 2013
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.”
No, Luz is not doing her usual, you are, misinformed and misinforming.
Even with the change of the law, any change in the witnesses previously submitted to the Court have to give a minimum of 5 days for the defense to pronounce themselves about the acceptability of such change. Mrs. Duarte knew from the defense lawyer Santos Oliveira, on thursday that he had required excuse for friday, and so, even if the defense lawyers accepted to give up the 5 days that they had to study the new witnesse's impact in the court procedure, Mr. McCann would not be able to present his testimony.
In face of all this I am convinced that Mr. McCann chose to appear as a marketing stunt. Unfortunately for him, with the adjourning of the trial session, it is expected that he will give testimony tomorrow. I'm looking anxiously for it.
By the way Anne, I'm not sure that Duarte knew about Oliveira, I am repeating gossip, which is not reliable. Shame on me.
-
No, Luz is not doing her usual, you are, misinformed and misinforming.
Even with the change of the law, any change in the witnesses previously submitted to the Court have to give a minimum of 5 days for the defense to pronounce themselves about the acceptability of such change. Mrs. Duarte knew from the defense lawyer Santos Oliveira, on thursday that he had required excuse for friday, and so, even if the defense lawyers accepted to give up the 5 days that they had to study the new witnesse's impact in the court procedure, Mr. McCann would not be able to present his testimony.
In face of all this I am convinced that Mr. McCann chose to appear as a marketing stunt. Unfortunately for him, with the adjourning of the trial session, it is expected that he will give testimony tomorrow. I'm looking anxiously for it.
By the way Anne, I'm not sure that Duarte knew about Oliveira, I am repeating gossip, which is not reliable. Shame on me.
Take it up with Isabel Duarte, it is her own quote! But you won't though will you?
-
No, Luz is not doing her usual, you are, misinformed and misinforming.
Even with the change of the law, any change in the witnesses previously submitted to the Court have to give a minimum of 5 days for the defense to pronounce themselves about the acceptability of such change. Mrs. Duarte knew from the defense lawyer Santos Oliveira, on thursday that he had required excuse for friday, and so, even if the defense lawyers accepted to give up the 5 days that they had to study the new witnesse's impact in the court procedure, Mr. McCann would not be able to present his testimony.
In face of all this I am convinced that Mr. McCann chose to appear as a marketing stunt. Unfortunately for him, with the adjourning of the trial session, it is expected that he will give testimony tomorrow. I'm looking anxiously for it.
By the way Anne, I'm not sure that Duarte knew about Oliveira, I am repeating gossip, which is not reliable. Shame on me.
Certainly gossip is every bit as reliable, if not more so, than the old, recycled tabloid stories that supporters refer Luz.
-
lets see if Gerry Mccann testifies tomorrow and can with his chosen fellowsPROVE that a book written on the case did this to them and the book, if it did, thats a massive IF, almost non existent IF, did any of that, alone....laughable
irreparably damaged and totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view.
That doesnt even make sense! i wonder who drafted the writ