The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[drummer]

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?

[C.Edwards]

Have you been promoted?

Oh, very good.   

TrueSardine, you will probably now find that the usual argument is rolled out in defence of your bolded bit - every time there are negative comments about the McCanns apparently it's just a few internet geniuses that are IP masking in order to downvote all the nice McCann supporters.

No, it's not very plausible, but I thought I'd mention it in advance of the inevitable.

[drummer]

«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

The Guardian is allowing comments, everyone get your socks on.

[Redblossom]

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.

this is just a wild guess, maybe when Duarte made her application to the judge to have him appear and make his statement she had to submit paperwork detailing what it was going to be about and the defence lawyers got a copy? And its somethng off the wall? probably not just an idea though, I too cant understand why Amarals lawyer would say something so categorical and somewhat unfathmable

oh and Ferryman, extraordinary lengths? To stop Gerry Mccann? Which ones? What I find extraordinary, is that at the 11th hour his lawyer makes an application to have him heard, (presumably, a last mnute change of mind for some reason otherwise the application would have been made weeks before seeing as the law had changed on september 1st that would allow him to appear) ie the day before the 27th September, he flies in and expects to be heard just like that? There are rules and procedures and the court cant drop everything! i am very surprised Duarte went along with this, she must have known he wouldnt be heard, wonder if he will bill her for his pointless trips.

Reappraise yourself with some of the details about the law on substitutng witnesses

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-was-gerry-mccann-in-portugal.html

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

[C.Edwards]

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?"

[Redblossom]

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?"

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

[drummer]

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?

[Redblossom]

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?

So why wait nearly a month to apply? And two weeks into the trial

[drummer]

 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?

[Redblossom]

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?

I think this continual talk about ace up his sleeve from when it was first reported yonks ago and regurgitated every so often year after year is silly......in any case, none of us can know what is really going on with any trial and its shifts and turns...courts and lawyers are funny places and people....its an adversarial environment, akin to war, seeing as any kind of diplomacy has failed...both teams will have their objectives strategies tactics etc etc..alls fair in love and war as the saying goes..the mccanns are after money as I dont see how a win will do them any good anyway......and if he does have one, then well, the ace is always at the end isnt it?

useless us second guessing when we're in the dark jmo

[Benice]

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

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

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.
I casually told him, as a member of the public, I hoped they would let Mr McCann take the stand. I once influenced him about speaking to the media. But this time why could I ?

[Redblossom]

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.

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

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?
Mr Dâmaso was a witness for both sides.
Mr Machado was a witness for the McCanns.

[Benice]

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.