The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Lyall]

Someone's been busy.

[Redblossom]

Someone's been busy.

Wonder if shes proud of rejecting applications to make trial in camera, her children will  be getting comments in school and she and her husband are the proud medal bearers for that

[Lyall]

Wonder if shes proud of rejecting applications to make trial in camera, her children will  be getting comments in school and she and her husband are the proud medal bearers for that

Yep. Poor kids.

[Montclair]

There is the possibility that the judge will decide against the testimony of the two McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral if she believes that she has enough evidence already to make her decision. I don't think that the judge wants to waste her time on useless theatrics. JMO

[Angelo222]

I have just read the bits and bobs from today's events and cannot get over the fact that Oliveira had it all his own way today.  Duarte has taken the cowards way out and left it to her sidekick to make a token appearance.  One of the McCanns should have been there today, it is their case, they raised the action.  What Duarte did today would be considered disrespectful in a British court.

[gilet]

Just to bring everyone up to date...

The McCann lawyer Mrs Isabel Duarte wasn't there today, and left it to her assistant, the camera shy Ricardo Alfonso.

First to testify this morning (by video-link from Funchal, Madeira) was PJ detective Ricardo Paiva.  Ricardo was the one who befriended the McCanns early on in the investigation and was made their liaison officer due to his bilingual skills.  He was the one whom Kate referred to as a [sic] 'f..king tosser, f..king tosser' in her book Madeleine.

He was followed by former Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida also by video-link from his barracks in Portimão.  His testimony was dismissed almost immediately (he had neither read the book nor knew the AG report)

Next was Luis Neves, Gonçalo Amaral's second in command at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine. He had much to say.

After lunch Manuel Catarino (Principal Writer with Correio da Manha) testified followed by former PJ officer and now criminologist Francisco Moita Flores also very talkative.

Hernani Carvalho did not appear but has been maintained by the defence and will be notified re November.


Finally as previously advised, both Kate and Gerry McCann have now requested to testify as has Gonçalo Amaral. The judge will decide once all witnesses have brought what they call "the matter of proof".

In your biography of Paiva you forgot to mention the fact that he was under a discplinary cloud for exposing himself to a woman on the internet early last year.

I wonder did the PJ deal with that like the Catholic Church dealt with its deviants and simply shuffled him off to Madeira (where he apparently is now judging by his need to he heard by video link) where he could carry on as if nothing had happened? Its interesting that the story which Correio da Manha ran about Paiva exposing his private parts on FB was written by none other than Eduardo Damaso (Isn't he another of Amaral's friends and potential witnesses?).

You omitted completely a biography of Almeida whose criminal conviction for torture of people involved in crimes that the PJ were investigating seems to be perfectly acceptable in Portugal judging by the fact that he remains a cop after such crimes. Surely readers are entitled to just as much of a biography of him as anyone else?

[Montclair]

In your biography of Paiva you forgot to mention the fact that he was under a discplinary cloud for exposing himself to a woman on the internet early last year.

I wonder did the PJ deal with that like the Catholic Church dealt with its deviants and simply shuffled him off to Madeira (where he apparently is now judging by his need to he heard by video link) where he could carry on as if nothing had happened? Its interesting that the story which Correio da Manha ran about Paiva exposing his private parts on FB was written by none other than Eduardo Damaso (Isn't he another of Amaral's friends and potential witnesses?).

You omitted completely a biography of Almeida whose criminal conviction for torture of people involved in crimes that the PJ were investigating seems to be perfectly acceptable in Portugal judging by the fact that he remains a cop after such crimes. Surely readers are entitled to just as much of a biography of him as anyone else?

Regarding Ricardo Paiva, the police believe that his FB page had been hacked which it probably was. So don't start accusing him now. All these accusations against policemen involved in the Maddie case just seem such a coincidence and a bit fishy.

As for Tavares de Almeida he had already been acquitted in the torture case and then all of sudden another court overturned it. It wasn't for torture anyway but for not acting against the torture.

At least in Portugal, when policemen do something illegal they are tried in a court of law. These cases are not swept under the rug by some police disciplinary authority which always finds no wrong doing, as happens in the UK. A good example, Jean-Charles Menezes or Hillsborough.

[gilet]

I have just read the bits and bobs from today's events and cannot get over the fact that Oliveira had it all his own way today.  Duarte has taken the cowards way out and left it to her sidekick to make a token appearance.  One of the McCanns should have been there today, it is their case, they raised the action.  What Duarte did today would be considered disrespectful in a British court.

Perhaps Duarte had a prior engagement like Amaral's lawyer the other day, but unlike him did not decide to play the game of delaying the trial?

Your presumption that she was the coward and he wasn't is quite funny really.

And why should the McCanns have been there? Is there some legal requirement? Why should they waste time travelling for about five hours of testimony which they have heard before. Not one of those witnesses today gave anything new at all, because there is nothing new they can say. Paiva changed his mind and this time (unlike at the injunction hearing) decided that the book did have an effect. I have no doubt the judge will refer back to his previous testimony and note that odd change in his stance. Thats all that was new today.

Almeida was a complete waste of time, clearly (if the claims of [ censored word] about Duarte's use of certain witnesses is to be believed) a definite sign of incompetence on the part of Amaral's lawyers.

The testimony about Krugel is old hat and shows absolutely no regard for a proper understanding on the part of the PJ officers as to what the motives for his being accepted by the McCanns were.

[gilet]

Regarding Ricardo Paiva, the police believe that his FB page had been hacked which it probably was. So don't start accusing him now. All these accusations against policemen involved in the Maddie case just seems such a coincidence and a bit fishy.

As for Tavares de Almeida he had already been acquitted in the torture case and then all of sudden another court overturned it. It wasn't for torture but for not acting against the torture.

Now you have made that claim about hacking, please support it. And I won't be taking the word of Damaso (who is a friend of Amaral and Paiva) as evidence.

When you talk about all these accusations about these "officers" as being fishy are you actually not aware that many were made long before the disappearance of Madeleine, particularly those against Amaral himself which were later proved in court? Are you suggesting the McCanns pre-arranged them all?

Almeida is a criminal. He was convicted for torture. He was never even suspended (as far as I am aware) from his work in the PJ.  The PJ has criminals who have clearly defiled the name of "officer of the law" working for them.

[icabodcrane]

I have just read the bits and bobs from today's events and cannot get over the fact that Oliveira had it all his own way today.  Duarte has taken the cowards way out and left it to her sidekick to make a token appearance.  One of the McCanns should have been there today, it is their case, they raised the action.  What Duarte did today would be considered disrespectful in a British court.

Did she give any reason for not being at court today Angelo ? 

[Montclair]

Perhaps Duarte had a prior engagement like Amaral's lawyer the other day, but unlike him did not decide to play the game of delaying the trial?

Your presumption that she was the coward and he wasn't is quite funny really.

And why should the McCanns have been there? Is there some legal requirement? Why should they waste time travelling for about five hours of testimony which they have heard before. Not one of those witnesses today gave anything new at all, because there is nothing new they can say. Paiva changed his mind and this time (unlike at the injunction hearing) decided that the book did have an effect. I have no doubt the judge will refer back to his previous testimony and note that odd change in his stance. Thats all that was new today.

Almeida was a complete waste of time, clearly (if the claims of [ censored word] about Duarte's use of certain witnesses is to be believed) a definite sign of incompetence on the part of Amaral's lawyers.

The testimony about Krugel is old hat and shows absolutely no regard for a proper understanding on the part of the PJ officers as to what the motives for his being accepted by the McCanns were.

Ricardo Paiva never said that the book had an effect on the investigation, the person who wrote that in the tweet in 2010 made a mistake.

[gilet]

One thing is clear.

If the Portuguese Court does not allow the people who are bringing this claim against Amaral to testify then it will be a very sad reflection on the notion of justice as applied by the Portuguese.

[Benita]

 Daily Express:

Madeleine: dramatic new court claims

Kate McCann is to make a dramatic bid to nail the smears which have hampered the search for her daughter Madeleine.

Brave Kate wants to defend herself in open court to silence her tormentor detective Goncalo Amaral over false claims she was involved in a cover-up, it was revealed yesterday.

The former GP is expected to use new evidence unearthed by Scotland Yard to kill off Portuguese police smears for once and for all. British officers are set to reveal 'fresh, substantative material' during a Crimewatch special on the case to be aired on Monday.

It comes as detectives revealed they are closer...
 

[gilet]

Ricardo Paiva never said that the book had an effect on the investigation, the person who wrote that in the tweet in 2010 made a mistake.

Sorry, that just is not possible.

In the defence of Anne Guedes testimony, John was very clear that it is not allowed to lie about what was said in court. Therefore if that report of the court case then was wrong it means that John was wrong to use that as a defence regarding the 100% accuracy of Anne Guedes edited reports.

But in the meantime could you prove your claim that the tweet was inaccurate? Some evidence to support your claim. A court transcript perhaps or judgement in which reference is made to Paiva's testimony? I have never seen that demonstrated anywhere.

[Montclair]

Sorry, that just is not possible.

In the defence of Anne Guedes testimony, John was very clear that it is not allowed to lie about what was said in court. Therefore if that report of the court case then was wrong it means that John was wrong to use that as a defence regarding the 100% accuracy of Anne Guedes edited reports.

But in the meantime could you prove your claim that the tweet was inaccurate? Some evidence to support your claim. A court transcript perhaps or judgement in which reference is made to Paiva's testimony? I have never seen that demonstrated anywhere.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the testimony today or the one in 2010? In both hearings Paiva stated that the book did not influence the flux of information coming into the PJ.

You seem very upset today. If you are not happy with the court proceedings take it up with the judge who IMO seems to be on the ball and does not let things get out of hand.

BTW, why does Kate need to come to court to defend herself? She is not on trial, she is the plaintiff. Also, I thought that she and her husband had already been "cleared" in the archiving report.