Author Topic: McCann v Gonšalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 6 (3 witnesses)  (Read 11591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonšalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 6
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2013, 11:10:25 AM »
Eduardo DÔmaso is a witness for both parties.

Can somebody explain how this can possibly be, or is it a mistake?  There is no system of law I have ever heard of where someone can be a witness for BOTH parties.
I discovered it was possible, Chinagirl, but finally why not ?
The fact a witness takes the stand for the accusation (or the defence) doesn't mean s/he's "for" one party. The witness is not supposed to give opinions but say what s/he saw, heard, observed, did. Before the witness states, the lawyer of the party which called the witness tells the judge on which "lines" the witness will be interrogated (the document to which these references correspond isn't available). When the judge overrules sometimes, it's because the question goes beyond those lines.
In the case of the "double witness", he was first interrogated on the lines indicated by the accusation and then on the lines indicated by the lawyer of the defence who called him. Yesterday, one of the witnesses had been called by two lawyers of the defence. First GA's lawyer indicated the references of his lines and, after the witness had been cross examined, G&P's lawyer indicated which were her lines.

Offline Luz

Re: McCann v Gonšalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 6
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2013, 08:19:27 AM »
Thank you very much Anne and John.

Offline Mercedes

Re: McCann v Gonšalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 6
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2013, 06:34:30 PM »
Sorry... Forgot to "quote"
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 06:38:10 PM by Mercedes »

Offline Mercedes

Re: McCann v Gonšalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 6
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2013, 06:37:01 PM »
Thank you very much, Mercedes, for the link to the original text ! I'll ask John to introduce the extracts in the reports, as of course they were quoted in Portuguese. It's a bit difficult to understand why this interview, precisely, is given such importance. Perhaps because it was made before the AG report, but anyhow it was only published after.

Personally I think they chose that one as they could have chosen any other. Isabel Duarte is doing a disastrous role, all presented as "proof" are merely personal opinions that are worthless.

Here I am waiting for next testimony  8**8:/:  8((()*/