Gerry's Statement to the Portuguese Court.

[faithlilly]

If OG has stated that the McCanns are not suspects in the investigation into their daughter's disappearance it is obvious that they have decided that the cadaver dog evidence is not relevant. Why then did Gerry draw unneeded attention to it in his statement to the Lisbon court ?


'GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...'

[G-Unit]

The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

[jassi]

The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

What a splendid putdown   

Gerry must have been furious.

[Alfie]

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.


That's why he brought it up in court. 

Next!

[G-Unit]

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.


That's why he brought it up in court. 

Next!

In his opinion. Just as in Amaral's opinion the abduction story wasn't true.

Why did he bring up something that wasn't even being considered by the court? He clearly misunderstood the purpose and scope of the trial, as well as the purpose and scope of the archiving dispatch.

[barrier]

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.


That's why he brought it up in court. 

Next!

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

In the first instance the judge concluded it had,three appeal judges followed by three Supreme court judges  concluded that it had not.Next.

[jassi]

But they're all wrong, don't you know?  Only the most junior, least experienced judge got it right   

Appeal judges, pah, what do they know ?

[Alfie]

In his opinion. Just as in Amaral's opinion the abduction story wasn't true.

Why did he bring up something that wasn't even being considered by the court? He clearly misunderstood the purpose and scope of the trial, as well as the purpose and scope of the archiving dispatch.

It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true.  And I've just explained why he brought it up in court.  The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns.  But never mind,  he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court.  What a complete idiot!  More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.

[Robittybob1]

The judge then told him, very clearly, what the purpose of the civil trial was. For those who bleat on about the 'lies' in the book; it's not relevant;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

Where and when are these conversations being recorded.

[barrier]

It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true.  And I've just explained why he brought it up in court.  The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns.  But never mind,  he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court.  What a complete idiot!  More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.

Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.

 

6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
.

[Robittybob1]

Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.

Who's blood and who was the cadaver?
"6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."

I don't mind someone saying the dogs alerted to something but it was never corroborated with finding physical evidence.

[G-Unit]

It's not an opinion - it's a fact that the book is full of so called facts that are not true.  And I've just explained why he brought it up in court.  The dog alerts was one of the so-called facts in the book, and the trial was about the damage the book (and by book we mean the contents, including all the so-called facts) caused the McCanns.  But never mind,  he clearly misunderstood so let's all have a good sneer at the utter stupidity of the man for even trying to defend his reputation in court.  What a complete idiot!  More contempt for Gerry needed here please, this thread hasn't nearly enough yet.

The fact that you hold the same opinion as Dr McCann doesn't make it true either. Neither does it make it relevant to the question being decided by the court; something which both you and Dr McCann seem unable to grasp.

[Alfie]

Proven facts from the first trial the one where the Judge supposed to have got it right and the subsequent appeal judges wrong.

Link please.

[Alfie]

The fact that you hold the same opinion as Dr McCann doesn't make it true either. Neither does it make it relevant to the question being decided by the court; something which both you and Dr McCann seem unable to grasp.

OK, because I am so stupid, perhaps you can tell me why the contents of Amaral's book are irrelevant to the question being decided by the court. 

[barrier]

Who's blood and who was the cadaver?
"6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."

I don't mind someone saying the dogs alerted to something but it was never corroborated with finding physical evidence.

Its not been determined yet,nor has what happened the night of 3/05/2007.