Why should it? If the complainants and their lead lawyer cannot even be bothered to attend a one day hearing where several police officers who were directly involved in the case then I fear they won't be taken seriously and have damaged their case irretrievably.
Luckily what a biased and rather angry sounding forum head in England thinks is wholly irrelevant to what the Judge thinks.
The lead lawyer does not have to attend. Did you not know that? Delegation is perfectly legal and it is just a shame that Amaral's lawyer chose to disrupt a whole day's business in court because he could not delegate. Maybe the judge won't look very kindly on that action?
And most certainly the McCanns are not obliged to travel all the way from England just to hear a couple of hours of video links and repetitive testimony (except where Paiva totally turned his testimony on its head from his last court appearance) from people whose stories they have heard before.
I think it rather silly that you believe that people acting legally and sensibly will bring discredit to themselves and people like Paiva who cannot keep to the same story twice will somehow be seen in a favourable light by the judge. But some people cannot see the wood for the trees as they say.
