The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[DCI]

So Gerry wasn't told to shut up, in court . What a difference a couple of deliberate alterations make 

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

[stephen25000]

So Gerry wasn't told to shut up, in court . What a difference a couple of deliberate alterations make 

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.

[Mr Gray]

So big headed gerry mccann tries to dominate proceedings.

No change there then.

No as consultant Gerry is used to speaking in public and being listened to....he seem s to have had quite a civil conversation with the judge which has been totally  misrepresented

[Montclair]

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

We can at least conclude from what the judge has said that the trial is not a libel trial despite what some posters on here keep insisting.  It only concerns whether the book affected the parents.

[Montclair]

She obviously interrupted Gerry. She probably did not tell him literally to be quiet but she did not allow him to continue talking.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.'

The suggestion being, perhaps , that one hasn't been done or at least completed in that regard...

But hang on just one minute, your honour, you must have heard that the McCanns are neither persons of interest or suspects, right,  hence then, m'lady, they have been thoroughly re investigated, re interviewed & ruled out entirely by SY & the PJ, of having any involvement whatsoever in Madeleine's disappearance, since they wouldn't just go announcing their non suspect status for fun now would they.

[Montclair]

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?

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.

[ferryman]

So far, I've read accounts by The Times, The Guardian and Sky News.  None says anything about Gerry making a point about the dogs.

One says Kate has read Amaral's book on-line in full.

[Montclair]

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.

[Admin]

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.

Thank you for clarifying this Montclair, it must have been a particularly difficult moment for the female interpreter sat alongside Mr McCann.  Our court reporter who is an English native speaker certainly appears to have heard the words be quiet during the exchange.

Can you per chance relate the exact phrase used by the interpreter in Portuguese?

[Admin]

Would that be Mark Simm, admin! aka???

Mark returned the report certainly but it was edited before being posted which has since raised concern that there was a mix up in the translation in the heat of the moment.  Hopefully someone with Portuguese as their first language and who also attended can relate verbatim what the judge stated.

[pathfinder73]

During his evidence Mr McCann said Mr Amaral had been wrong to claim in his book that sniffer dogs had detected blood and the smell of death in the holiday apartment.

The judge warned him that the libel trial was not about trying to establish what had happened to Madeline.

3 News / Sky News

Also in the vid by Martin Brunt

http://www.3news.co.nz/McCanns-parents-address-libel-hearing/tabid/417/articleID/351984/Default.aspx

[Gadfly]

So what appears to be a judge doing his job -- and keeping the libel trial in good order -- has been spun again by those critical obsessives who wake up every morning thinking about the McCanns.

You have to wonder if these people who analyse everything via the prism of the McCanns being evil/liars etc... can even manage to walk down the street without being mesmerised by each and every last street lamp.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?