The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Eleanor]

You've seen this in writing, have you?  Perhaps you could provide a link so the rest of us can share it.

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.

[Victoria]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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.

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

[Redblossom]

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.

Me neither, all I know is application to make her ward of court was in mid May 2007 which gave legal guardianship to Justice Hogg... If you go to mccannfiles.com and do a search (search this site button) using ward as the search word there are some articles and docs there....I wonder if Ms Hogg was a signatory to the libel writ

[Redblossom]

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

+1

Have to agree with that...as it happened to me the other day.. It just doesnt cut the mustard saying, I dont have time or inclination to find it, well you can believe me or not, look for yourself..etc..and especially as no other posters do the backing up either....

[Carana]

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'm wondering about that as well. It seems odd to question the issue at the last minute.

[Carana]

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.

Ah. I hadn't thought about that aspect.

ETA. But even so, that wouldn't really explain the last-minute issue.

[sadie]

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.

It was standard practice with Public school and Grammar school educated people to use just the surname in business ... and even when referring to aquaintances.  I feel sure the same would be the case with graduates from the better universities.

My father always referred to people, [maybe men?],  like that and he wasn't being rude.  In fact to use a title, unless a special one, like Sir or Lord, was considered a bit naff.  In certain situations, maybe, foppish.

I would have thought that Anne was the "equality with men" type ... and would take it in her stride.

[sadie]

Ah. I hadn't thought about that aspect.

ETA. But even so, that wouldn't really explain the last-minute issue.

Maybe it is an act of desperation?  A delaying tactic?

[jassi]

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.

It may not be the only reason, but certainly a strong possibility. When lawyers get up to their antics, you can never be sure of motives, or indeed outcome.

 It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this has on the eventual judgement.

[Estuarine]

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

I'll have some of this one too please !

[Eleanor]

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.

[jassi]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[jassi]

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.