The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[AnneGuedes]

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.
 

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 ?

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Benita]

It started with the rest of the evidence by witness Luís Froes, about contracts and numbers. Then we saw the documentary, followed by a short break.

After the break we saw a segment from a Portuguese talk show dated May 27, 2009.
It featured Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and Duarte Levy (by phone).
Both videos were appended to the case by the plaintiffs.

The judge set the next court session for January 7, as it was not possible to find a date that would fit all six parties before the Christmas holidays.

The decision concerning the intervention of Kate and/or Gerry and/or Gonçalo will be made by the judge before the 7th of January (well before that date, she said, for obvious logistical reasons on the UK side, if granted) and the lawyers will be informed directly.


On the 7th, we will hear the parties' statements - if granted - and closing arguments. The judge does not foresee that this is not possible to be done in just one day. Hopefully the 7th of January will be the last trial session

[AnneGuedes]

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

This is one of the reasons why I'm amazed the McCanns kept such a lawyer.

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Benice]

You might be very right, Benice, but what is "all the evidence" actually ?

Would you mind not quoting only parts of my posts Anne.   The whole of my post includes some of the reasons which indicate that no significant changes have taken place in the McCanns lifestyle which would point to their being interested in obtaining money to fund a luxurious lifestyle.

[AnneGuedes]

Wouldn't have asked the question if it was clear.

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

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

[stephen25000]

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

The cipriano case is on another thread.

Take this there.

[Carana]

Don't you understand that the lawyer who called him finally desisted ?

Any idea why?

[Mr Gray]

The cipriano case is on another thread.

Take this there.

anne has claimed the conviction is a myth on this thread  hence the question..this is about amaral...she has to substantiate the statement on this thread

[Benita]

The cipriano case is on another thread.

Take this there.

you been promoted to mod have you Stephen ... 

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

Any idea why?

Ask the lawyer, Carana.
But I'll be nice with you and tell you what answer I got about the desisting of witnesses. A typical yiddish one : if a lawyer does so it's obviously because it serves best his/her interests !

[Mr Gray]

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 happen