Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
Title: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
Anne and John did a great job in bringing us such a detailed report and I feel it deserves a discussion thread of it's own, since it raises a few questions
The first thing that struck me was that Wright understated the significance of the McCanns being made Arguido
He implied that it was some sort of 'formality' that was enacted as a matter of course
When he said that they ( the McCanns ) were made Arguido because the parents are always suspected first, the Judge asked him if something had happened in the investigation that lead to the Arguido status being given ... Wright responded, "Not paticularly"
The Judge reminded him of the dogs' evidence to which Wright responded that it ( the dogs' evidence ) had later been called into question
Why did he pretend that it was not the dogs' evidence that lead directly to the McCanns being made Arguido ? ... he must have known that was the case ... the Judge certainly did
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: C.Edwards on September 23, 2013, 07:09:27 PM
Perhaps his notes (underlined in green) didn't cover that bit.
He was very obviously attempting to put forward the opinion that it was only at the time of publication of Amaral's book that the world turned against the McCanns. As my (ignored by the pros) post has evidenced, this was already happening long before the book came out.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 07:20:24 PM
Perhaps his notes (underlined in green) didn't cover that bit.
He was very obviously attempting to put forward the opinion that it was only at the time of publication of Amaral's book that the world turned against the McCanns. As my (ignored by the pros) post has evidenced, this was already happening long before the book came out.
Indeed
It was highlighted when he was asked what effect the Arguido status had on public opinion
The Judge "What did people conclude from the Arguido status ?"
Michael Wright stays silent then says "There were e mails saying it confirmed what they suspected but the emails with specific threats only occured after the book was published"
In her book, Madeleine ( page 301 ) Kate McCann writes of occasional 'death threats' turning up in their mail prior to Feb 2008 ... before Amaral's book was published
So Wright's testimony was inaccurate wasn't it ?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: C.Edwards on September 23, 2013, 07:30:40 PM
The whole performance seems ridiculous when considered... how can one person expect to stand up in court and make all these easily-refuted claims and expect to be taken seriously? 5 minutes on google is enough to blow pretty much everything we've heard out of the water as far as I can tell.
<removed to keep things on track!>
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 07:39:05 PM
Another point raised by Wright's testimony which may be worthy of debate is the claim that Amaral's book interfered with the investigation :
The Judge interupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files
Michael Wright says after
The Judge "Then how could the book interfere with the investigation ?
Michael Wright satys silent
The Judge repeats the question
Michael Wright says It didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private detectives hired by Kate and Gerry
So the effect Amaral's book had on the investigation was limited to the McCanns hired private detectives ?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 07:42:53 PM
The whole performance seems ridiculous when considered... how can one person expect to stand up in court and make all these easily-refuted claims and expect to be taken seriously? 5 minutes on google is enough to blow pretty much everything we've heard out of the water as far as I can tell.
I'm surprised forum members are so disinterested Wright's testimony all the same
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: C.Edwards on September 23, 2013, 07:43:39 PM
Another point raised by Wright's testimony which may be worthy of debate is the claim that Amaral's book interfered with the investigation :
The Judge interupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files
Michael Wright says after
The Judge "Then how could the book interfere with the investigation ?
Michael Wright satys silent
The Judge repeats the question
Michael Wright says It didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private detectives hired by Kate and Gerry
So the effect Amaral's book had on the investigation was limited to the McCanns hired private detectives ?
Yes. You could hardly make it up, could you? Do you think that he may have been going for the angle that somehow the book was responsible for shelving the investigation? Even if so, the McCanns could easily have stymied that plan by simply requesting it stayed open!
On the face of it, it seems an utter debacle to try and claim what Michael Wright did. I can only imagine the thoughts churning through his head as the Judge made it clear she wasn't prepared to accept silence as an answer!
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: C.Edwards on September 23, 2013, 07:44:58 PM
Yes. You could hardly make it up, could you? Do you think that he may have been going for the angle that somehow the book was responsible for shelving the investigation? Even if so, the McCanns could easily have stymied that plan by simply requesting it stayed open!
On the face of it, it seems an utter debacle to try and claim what Michael Wright did. I can only imagine the thoughts churning through his head as the Judge made it clear she wasn't prepared to accept silence as an answer!
I've been impressed withthe Judge too
It was to her credit, I think, that she considered Michael Wright refering to 'his notes' when answering suggested a lack of sponteniety ... and even went as far as to take them ( his notes ) in order for them to photo-copied and handed out to all parties concerned
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: LagosBen on September 23, 2013, 08:02:43 PM
It was to her credit, I think, that she considered Michael Wright refering to 'his notes' when answering suggested a lack of sponteniety ... and even went as far as to consfiscate them ( his notes ) in order for them to photo-copied and handed out to all parties concerned
Confiscate? She did no such thing. They were taken and copied for others to read them.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 08:04:45 PM
It was to her credit, I think, that she considered Michael Wright refering to 'his notes' when answering suggested a lack of sponteniety ... and even went as far as to take them ( his notes ) in order for them to photo-copied and handed out to all parties concerned
I think it was our learned friend the GP lawyer that picked on the "spontaneity" thing, wasn't it? I've only read it once so I might be wrong.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: DCI on September 23, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
GA's lawyer, SO, interrupts asking the Judge to ask the witness what is the paper he is reading.
Yes... keep reading... come back to me when you see it ;-)
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 09:55:44 PM
I am surprised at the forum's lack of interest in Michael Wright's detailed witness testimony
Can I take it that no-one here agrees with his assertion that when the Arguido status was given to the McCanns it was just a matter of course and not related to anything 'in particular' that had happened in the investigation ?
Do we all agree, also, that Wright was mistaken when he claimed public opinion did not turn against the McCanns when they were made Arguido and that it only happened ( the public turning on them ) 'after' Amaral published his book ?
Was he a good witness for the McCanns in view of his errors ?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Montclair on September 23, 2013, 09:59:32 PM
I am surprised at the forum's lack of interest in Michael Wright's detailed witness testimony
Can I take it that no-one here agrees with his assertion that when the Arguido status was given to the McCanns it was just a matter of course and not related to anything 'in particular' that had happened in the investigation ?
Do we all agree, also, that Wright was mistaken when he claimed public opinion did not turn against the McCanns when they were made Arguido and that it only happened ( the public turning on them ) 'after' Amaral published his book ?
Was he a good witness for the McCanns in view of his errors ?
So far, none of the witnesses have been good witnesses for the McCanns. I'm looking forward to hearing from the big bully coward Marinho e Pinto who tried to get out of cross examination.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: stephen25000 on September 23, 2013, 10:01:41 PM
w.r.t. Mr. Wright.
Go to link if you wish.
http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: gilet on September 23, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
I don't agree at all. It is perfectly normal for witnesses to have notes in civil and criminal cases.
It may be less common in Portuguese courts but is very common here.
In Portugal, a witness may have notes regarding dates or times but they are not allowed to have notes about feelings and emotions because testimony has to be spontaneous.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 23, 2013, 10:09:43 PM
Another point raised by Wright's testimony which may be worthy of debate is the claim that Amaral's book interfered with the investigation :
The Judge interupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files
Michael Wright says after
The Judge "Then how could the book interfere with the investigation ?
Michael Wright satys silent
The Judge repeats the question
Michael Wright says It didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private detectives hired by Kate and Gerry
So the effect Amaral's book had on the investigation was limited to the McCanns hired private detectives ?
But he is not called upon to demonstrate how....
Didn't Metodo 3 make all sorts of claims that they knew where Madeleine was, and that she was alive and well in Morocco? Did they ever claim that their failure to find Madeleine in the end was due to Amaral? (They were of course running a fraudulent operation, but the point is that they never claimed, as far as I am aware, to have been deterred in their work by fallout from Amaral's book).
David Edgar testifies, in Anne's words, that it was 'difficult to know' if the book had a detrimental effect on his work or not, without going into any further detail. What was the point of this witness?
Surely, as the only paid investigators into Madeleine's disappearance since the official investigation was closed by the PJ (until Operation Grange), the various private investigators would surely have data on how Amaral's thesis had stymied their work.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: gilet on September 23, 2013, 10:15:23 PM
Didn't Metodo 3 make all sorts of claims that they knew where Madeleine was, and that she was alive and well in Morocco? Did they ever claim that their failure to find Madeleine in the end was due to Amaral? (They were of course running a fraudulent operation, but the point is that they never claimed, as far as I am aware, to have been deterred in their work by fallout from Amaral's book).
David Edgar testifies, in Anne's words, that it was 'difficult to know' if the book had a detrimental effect on his work or not, without going into any further detail. What was the point of this witness?
Surely, as the only paid investigators into Madeleine's disappearance since the official investigation was closed by the PJ (until Operation Grange), the various private investigators would surely have data on how Amaral's thesis had stymied their work.
It appears to me that the 'damages' suffered by the McCanns have only been alluded to and not 'proven' in actual evidence
Kate McCann's suicidal depression is 'alluded' to ... but no psychiatric report written by mental health professionals is produced in evidence
The damage to the McCann's private investigation is 'alluded' to ... but no statistical or even anecdotal evidence is produced by the private detectives themselves
It really does seem, so far, to be the old story ... "it's true because we say so"
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Redblossom on September 23, 2013, 10:28:11 PM
I am surprised at the forum's lack of interest in Michael Wright's detailed witness testimony
Can I take it that no-one here agrees with his assertion that when the Arguido status was given to the McCanns it was just a matter of course and not related to anything 'in particular' that had happened in the investigation ?
Do we all agree, also, that Wright was mistaken when he claimed public opinion did not turn against the McCanns when they were made Arguido and that it only happened ( the public turning on them ) 'after' Amaral published his book ?
Was he a good witness for the McCanns in view of his errors ?
Public opinion had turned quite quickly after May 07 IMO..Michael Wright has presented no facts or figures to back up what he is saying that Amarals book caused this in 2008...it had become so bad as they were made arguidos and before (and no Michael Wright is wrong to say they became such just because the parents are normally first suspects, Murat was made first suspect) that some agency set out to work with the media to turn around the reporting to more positive stories and they won an award for it, the name escapes me though
ETa this one, thanks to a kind fairy that reminded me http://www.mccannfiles.com/id275.html
Also when in April May 2008 the Mccanns went on a round of interviews in UK and Portugal they were asked some awkward questions....long before Amarals book
He also is skating on extremely thin ice, if it didnt crack instantly, that Mr Amarals book was responsible for some obscure nutter or two to post threats on some forum. Even in their own first documentary, One Year On, in April 2008 they had a special box for letters from nutters who wished them ill and blamed them etc....they laughed and shrugges tthem off....said documentary is now deleted from youtube
The assertion that their private investigators work were interfered with by the book can also be proven to not be so true, all you have to do is read Gerry Mccanns blogs for 2009 to see how much support and how much information they were flooded with after their documentaries and appeals that year and Dave Edgars appeal to find Victoria Beckham lookalike
He apparently seems to have a problem with dates anyway
From the court evidence
The first witness of the session is Michael Wright, an administrator, whose wife is Kate McCann's cousin. He has known Kate since she was ten years of age and Gerald McCann since 2001. They used to have regular contact."
From his rogatory interview
My wife is Kate's cousin and I have known Kate since she was 8 years old. She used to spend holidays on Isle of Man where I lived. My wife's and Kate's families are quite close. I have known Gerry since 1997 when he was going out with Kate before they married.
Just a few quick observations
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 23, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Going off topic for a second, the Mccanns own interviews for years on years, and this is one thing that struck me as odd, was they used the exact same words, and I mean word for word,and phrases to answer the same/similar questions over and over, scripted and controlled...
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 23, 2013, 11:39:29 PM
Going off topic for a second, the Mccanns own interviews for years on years, and this is one thing that struck me as odd, was they used the exact same words, and I mean word for word,and phrases to answer the same/similar questions over and over, scripted and controlled...
I know what you mean Red
The time they trailed the studios doing the "why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying last night" story was most remarkable in that regard .... not just the exact same words used every time, but the exact same facial expressions !
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Redblossom on September 23, 2013, 11:49:04 PM
The time they trailed the studios doing the "why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying last night" story was most remarkable in that regard .... not just the exact same words used every time, but the exact same facial expressions !
yes, and there were mantras sounded out...no doubt given by advisers or lawyers,ie there is no evidence she has come to any significant/serious harm...from day 2 or 3, day 2 or 3 we had john mccann on his sofa saying that....the mccanns repeated it for years, how could they know from so early on there was no evidence of serious harm, they hadnt even had a chance to look properly or somethng to come up, seems orchestrated to me..hmmm....and when they launched their funs there was john mccann agan as early as two weeks later talking about private detectives the fund would pay for...all that forward planning, most proactive
must say alot of their relatives were more natural
hark at john mccann saying about their initiatives and if the police can work with them thats great.... they took control from day one, wellthis video is around may 9 iirc...IIRC the police told them NOT to contact the media, they did pdq, and the police told them NOT to advertise Maddies eye defect as it might prove lethal but Gerry in his wisdom though it was a GREAT *marketing ploy* even if the abductor did anythtng to it!!!! Then 5 years later Kate goes on telly and says theynever made anything much of the eye defect LOL no not really after all those LOOK posters everywhere
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 12:57:12 AM
It appears to me that the 'damages' suffered by the McCanns have only been alluded to and not 'proven' in actual evidence
Kate McCann's suicidal depression is 'alluded' to ... but no psychiatric report written by mental health professionals is produced in evidence
The damage to the McCann's private investigation is 'alluded' to ... but no statistical or even anecdotal evidence is produced by the private detectives themselves
It really does seem, so far, to be the old story ... "it's true because we say so"
Surely a psychiatric or at least Dr's report would be essential for anyone trying to prove such claims. One can only ask, why wouldn't Kate have seen a psychiatrist, therapist, or even talked things over with another GP, if only to get a written record for court purposes? Why show up in court with barely any evidence to present of mental anguish, when written evidence could quite easily have been procured?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 24, 2013, 01:01:09 AM
Surely a psychiatric or at least Dr's report would be essential for anyone trying to prove such claims. One can only ask, why wouldn't Kate have seen a psychiatrist, therapist, or even talked things over with another GP, if only to get a written record for court purposes? Why show up in court with barely any evidence to present of mental anguish, when written evidence could quite easily have been procured?
Well, not that easily procured Sherlock ... a person would actually have to be suffering from a psychiatric illness ( of which suicidal clinical depression is one ) in order to be diagnosed as such
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Redblossom on September 24, 2013, 01:05:37 AM
Well, not that easily procured Sherlock ... a person would actually have to be suffering from a psychiatric illness ( of which suicidal clinical depression is one ) in order to be diagnosed as such
She had a counsellor privately paid for by mark warner with a degree in social sciences..bleurhg....and it seems paid by them later, wierd......no real doctors anywhere
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 24, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
She had a counsellor privately paid for by mark warner with a degree in social sciences..bleurhg....and it seems paid by them later, wierd......no real doctors anywhere
It's a point that wasn't wasted on the Judge either
She interupted when Michael Wright was questioned about Kate's depression , saying that only a doctor was qualified to answer that question
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 01:17:05 AM
Well, not that easily procured Sherlock ... a person would actually have to be suffering from a psychiatric illness ( of which suicidal clinical depression is one ) in order to be diagnosed as such
The psychiatrist or therapist would diagnose accordingly.
There are many passing or longer-term mental / emotional health conditions relating to a person's experience of difficult circumstances that are not psychotic in nature, but nonetheless fall within a medical remit, such as depression or anxiety, and adjustment disorders (disorders of mental or emotional state in an otherwise mentally healthy person, currently adjusting to major trauma or stress).
It would have been perfectly reasonable and honest of a medical health professional to attest in writing to Kate's suffering from one or more of the above, judging by the various accounts we have of her reaction to her situation. If it is true that Gerry had to take time off work to look after her, for example, as one of the witnesses reported, this would be evidence that she was temporarily unable to function. That is reasonably serious, without coming under any classification of psychosis.
Although I must admit this is all more Dr Watson's line....
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Redblossom on September 24, 2013, 01:18:48 AM
The psychiatrist or therapist would diagnose accordingly.
There are many passing or longer-term mental / emotional health conditions relating to a person's experience of difficult circumstances that are not psychotic in nature, but nonetheless fall within a medical remit, such as depression or anxiety, and adjustment disorders (disorders of mental or emotional state in an otherwise mentally healthy person, currently adjusting to major trauma or stress).
It would have been perfectly reasonable and honest of a medical health professional to attest in writing to Kate's suffering from one or more of the above, judging by the various accounts we have of her reaction to her situation. If it is true that Gerry had to take time off work to look after her, for example, as one of the witnesses reported, this would be evidence that she was temporarily unable to function. That is reasonably serious, without coming under any classification of psychosis.
Although I must admit this is all more Dr Watson's line....
If a person who was suffering from depression went to their GP the GP would make a judgement on the severity of symtoms described
He/She might think it appropriate to use drug therapies combined with counselling, or councelling alone, depending on the professional judgement made
If a person went to their GP suffering from depression that was of such severity they were having suicidal thoughts, the GP would, without question, arrange an immediate assessment at a psychiatric unit
That would be essential in order to assess whether the patient presented an actual 'suicide risk'
I do not understand why, if Kate was having suicidal thoughts because of Amaral's book, this normal procedure was not followed ... and the medical records pertaining to it produced in court as evidence
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Redblossom on September 24, 2013, 01:29:13 AM
If a person who was suffering from depression went to their GP the GP would make a judgement on the severity of symtoms described
He/She might think it appropriate to use drug therapies combined with counselling, or councelling alone, depending on the professional judgement made
If a person went to their GP suffering from depression that was of such severity they were having suicidal thoughts, the GP would, without question, arrange an immediate assessment at a psychiatric unit
That would be essential in order to assess whether the patient presented an actual 'suicide risk'
I do not understand why, if Kate was having suicidal thoughts because of Amaral's book, this normal procedure was not followed ... and the medical records pertaining to it produced in court as evidence
Exactly
Perhaps they think because they are doctors they can bypass the usual steps and diagnose themselves?
Even so, what about the medication issue? If a person was suicidal or had severe depression, medication would normally be prescribed.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 24, 2013, 02:20:38 AM
Perhaps they think because they are doctors they can bypass the usual steps and diagnose themselves?
Even so, what about the medication issue? If a person was suicidal or had severe depression, medication would normally be prescribed.
It may be the case, I suppose, that Kate McCann's recent medical history, and any evidence of anti-depressant/ anxiety medidaction prescribed , has not been presented to the court because she was already being treated 'before' Amaral's book was published
It would be perfectly understandable if that were the case .... how could a mother endure the stress and trauma of losing a child ( whatever the circumstances may have been ) without the assistance of professional medical help
The problem is, of course, if Kate was already receiving that sort of medical assistance before Amaral's book was published, she could hardly present it as evidence in this particular trial ( which claims damages for Amaral being 'the cause' of her depression )
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 02:40:08 AM
It may be the case, I suppose, that Kate McCann's recent medical history, and any evidence of anti-depressant/ anxiety medidaction prescribed , has not been presented to the court because she was already being treated 'before' Amaral's book was published
It would be perfectly understandable if that were the case .... how could a mother endure the stress and trauma of losing a child ( whatever the circumstances may have been ) without the assistance of professional medical help
The problem is, of course, if Kate was already receiving that sort of medical assistance before Amaral's book was published, she could hardly present it as evidence in this particular trial ( which claims damages for Amaral being 'the cause' of her depression )
Interesting idea, Icabod
But mightn't that be considered concealing evidence? If she had been diagnosed with something like severe depression and was (or is) being prescribed medication, then that is an important aspect of her emotional / mental state that is being withheld from the court.
Perhaps that could explain why there is a glaring absence of medical professionals testifying?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 24, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
But mightn't that be considered concealing evidence? If she had been diagnosed with something like severe depression and was (or is) being prescribed medication, then that is an important aspect of her emotional / mental state that is being withheld from the court.
Perhaps that could explain why there is a glaring absence of medical professionals testifying?
No, I don't think it could be considered as concealing evidence
Kate has not taken the stand, afterall, she has not at any time ( as far as I am aware ) made any mention of any medical treatment/drug therapy she has recieved for depression
In court all we have heard is second hand 'hearsay' regarding Kate's suicidal depression
It has always been that way ... the McCanns rarely commit to anything, leaving it to others to 'assume'
Anything 'assumed' by others, of course, in entirely deniable by the McCann themselves, if push comes to shove
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 03:55:23 AM
No, I don't think it could be considered as concealing evidence
Kate has not taken the stand, afterall, she has not at any time ( as far as I am aware ) made any mention of any medical treatment/drug therapy she has recieved for depression
In court all we have heard is second hand 'hearsay' regarding Kate's suicidal depression
It has always been that way ... the McCanns rarely commit to anything, leaving it to others to 'assume'
Anything 'assumed' by others, of course, in entirely deniable by the McCann themselves, if push comes to shove
She might not be in the stand herself, but she is paying lawyers to argue on her behalf that she and her family have suffered severe trauma. The witness accounts so far are mere hearsay, but at the same time, KM is providing those witnesses in order to represent her situation to the court, so presumably she concurs with their views. Somewhere along the line, extreme claims such as the plaintiff being suicidal are going to have to be accounted for, obfuscation or not.
Perhaps Kate's mother will enlighten us next week...
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: icabodcrane on September 24, 2013, 04:13:58 AM
She might not be in the stand herself, but she is paying lawyers to argue on her behalf that she and her family have suffered severe trauma. The witness accounts so far are mere hearsay, but at the same time, KM is providing those witnesses in order to represent her situation to the court, so presumably she concurs with their views. Somewhere along the line, extreme claims such as the plaintiff being suicidal are going to have to be accounted for, obfuscation or not.
Perhaps Kate's mother will enlighten us next week...
Yet more hearsay Sherlock
From that very first morning ... when we awoke to blanket news about the little girl who had been abducted from her bed after some beast had 'smashed' the shutters and broke through the window ... whilst her parents were eating, practically in the garden ! ... the stage was set
From that time on, we have been given a 'narrative' ... and all of it is deniable ... because it never comes directly from the McCanns
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: ferryman on September 24, 2013, 04:33:17 AM
She might not be in the stand herself, but she is paying lawyers to argue on her behalf that she and her family have suffered severe trauma. The witness accounts so far are mere hearsay, but at the same time, KM is providing those witnesses in order to represent her situation to the court, so presumably she concurs with their views. Somewhere along the line, extreme claims such as the plaintiff being suicidal are going to have to be accounted for, obfuscation or not.
Perhaps Kate's mother will enlighten us next week...
Hearsay?
Hearsay is what is reported to a witness by third-parties.
This witness is relating first-hand experience of working with, and observing, Kate McCann ...
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 04:36:27 AM
From that very first morning ... when we awoke to blanket news about the little girl who had been abducted from her bed after some beast had 'smashed' the shutters and broke through the window ... whilst her parents were eating, practically in the garden ! ... the stage was set
From that time on, we have been given a 'narrative' ... and all of it is deniable ... because it never comes directly from the McCanns
So interesting, Icabod
You really are a night owl, aren't you?
Sherlock is presently in another time zone. I am paying a visit as we speak to New Jersey.. birthplace of the enigmatic Irene Adler..
Back to the McCanns tomorrow.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 24, 2013, 04:43:55 AM
Hearsay is what is reported to a witness by third-parties.
This witness is relating first-hand experience of working with, and observing, Kate McCann ...
Isn't saying that the private investigators' work was adversely affected by Amaral's thesis yet offering no explanation as to what that actually means tantamount to hearsay? (see Michael Wright's testimony).
He heard it and repeated it - but was not able to back it up.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: ferryman on September 24, 2013, 04:48:00 AM
Isn't saying that the private investigators' work was adversely affected by Amaral's thesis yet offering no explanation as to what that actually means tantamount to hearsay? (see Michael Wright's testimony).
He heard it and repeated it - but was not able to back it up.
It would be more compelling coming direct from the private investigators, yes ...
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: ferryman on September 24, 2013, 08:22:55 AM
How hard did Robert Murat find it to prove damage in his successful action against Correia de Manaha?
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Angelo222 on September 24, 2013, 08:43:43 AM
Isn't saying that the private investigators' work was adversely affected by Amaral's thesis yet offering no explanation as to what that actually means tantamount to hearsay? (see Michael Wright's testimony).
He heard it and repeated it - but was not able to back it up.
These of course being the same so called private investigators who according to ex RUC detective Dave Edgar weren't professional? (Edgar boasted on the stand in Lisbon that he was the first professional investigator engaged by the McCanns)
It has been shown that the PI's engaged by the McCanns were a bunch of crooks who invented sightings and stories just to keep in favour. So how could anything that Mr Amaral did have had any consequence in an investigation which was basically a SHAM anyway??
Yet again this is an example of their shift the blame at any cost policy.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Luz on September 24, 2013, 01:08:09 PM
I'm surprised forum members are so disinterested Wright's testimony all the same
Considering what was reported by our brave Anne, most probably Mr. Wright's testimony will be discarded if his notes reflect what he gave as testimony in Court. Greenink is not acceptable in a Court of law where you are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, "so help me God", and not some second hand fabricated "memories" concatenated in a Hotel with the help of "God knows" whatever memory helpers.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: LagosBen on September 24, 2013, 01:33:16 PM
Considering what was reported by our brave Anne, most probably Mr. Wright's testimony will be discarded if his notes reflect what he gave as testimony in Court. Greenink is not acceptable in a Court of law where you are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, "so help me God", and not some second hand fabricated "memories" concatenated in a Hotel with the help of "God knows" whatever memory helpers.
Brave??? She went to a Trial and took notes.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 24, 2013, 01:36:09 PM
Considering what was reported by our brave Anne, most probably Mr. Wright's testimony will be discarded if his notes reflect what he gave as testimony in Court. Greenink is not acceptable in a Court of law where you are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, "so help me God", and not some second hand fabricated "memories" concatenated in a Hotel with the help of "God knows" whatever memory helpers.
No God's help in Portugal ! Yes this is rather strange that Mrs Duarte noted the A4 paper photocopy could be stationary paper. In fact hotels use to provide paper with their printed name on...
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: gilet on September 24, 2013, 01:42:03 PM
Considering what was reported by our brave Anne, most probably Mr. Wright's testimony will be discarded if his notes reflect what he gave as testimony in Court. Greenink is not acceptable in a Court of law where you are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, "so help me God", and not some second hand fabricated "memories" concatenated in a Hotel with the help of "God knows" whatever memory helpers.
What in God's name is brave about sitting in a court room, taking notes?
Are you suggesting that Portuguese court rooms are dangerous places?
Are you actually aware of the content of the notes? Are you actually aware that others helped make these notes? Are you actually able to demonstrate that the notes were not in fact the truth of his memory? Or are you just making wild and nasty speculation for the sake of it?
An absence of evidence that you do know the contents, the relationship of the contents to true memory and whether there was assistance given in making the notes will show clearly that you are just speculating wildly. It will not be a shock to those who read your posts regularly and have done so for many years.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: gilet on September 24, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
No God's help in Portugal ! Yes this is rather strange that Mrs Duarte noted the A4 paper photocopy could be stationary paper. In fact hotels use to provide paper with their printed name on...
That comment really does jar with the idea that you are reporting accurately from the court room.
When you post something like that, making it very clear that you do not understand that 'stationary' is a generic term which most definitely includes the stationary made available in all good hotels with or without a logo. During a recent stay in a central London Hotel (Guoman chain) the stationary included envelopes and both headed and plain notepaper. The headed paper is generally used as the first page of a letter and the plain for subsequent pages. The plain paper was a pad of at least 40 sheets in identical style to the headed paper which was in the drawer as separate sheets.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Luz on September 24, 2013, 05:06:36 PM
What in God's name is brave about sitting in a court room, taking notes?
Are you suggesting that Portuguese court rooms are dangerous places?
Are you actually aware of the content of the notes? Are you actually aware that others helped make these notes? Are you actually able to demonstrate that the notes were not in fact the truth of his memory? Or are you just making wild and nasty speculation for the sake of it?
An absence of evidence that you do know the contents, the relationship of the contents to true memory and whether there was assistance given in making the notes will show clearly that you are just speculating wildly. It will not be a shock to those who read your posts regularly and have done so for many years.
Your systematic attack on my posts is not paying off. Other members most certainly have already seen where you come from. But if it pleases you in any depraved way, be my guest, however I'l restrain from addressing you unless you start using your own words as guide.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 25, 2013, 03:27:00 PM
These of course being the same so called private investigators who according to ex RUC detective Dave Edgar weren't professional? (Edgar boasted on the stand in Lisbon that he was the first professional investigator engaged by the McCanns)
It has been shown that the PI's engaged by the McCanns were a bunch of crooks who invented sightings and stories just to keep in favour. So how could anything that Mr Amaral did have had any consequence in an investigation which was basically a SHAM anyway??
Yet again this is an example of their shift the blame at any cost policy.
YWT that these crooks, having little reverence for the truth, could conveniently have blamed their failure to make progress opon the supposed all-pervading influence of Amaral - if Amaral's influence was as profound as suggested.
Instead, as you say Angelo, they focused on the sightings, and indeed invented sightings, insisting that Madeleine was alive and findable.
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Puffin on September 25, 2013, 03:58:14 PM
That comment really does jar with the idea that you are reporting accurately from the court room.
When you post something like that, making it very clear that you do not understand that 'stationary' is a generic term which most definitely includes the stationary made available in all good hotels with or without a logo. During a recent stay in a central London Hotel (Guoman chain) the stationary included envelopes and both headed and plain notepaper. The headed paper is generally used as the first page of a letter and the plain for subsequent pages. The plain paper was a pad of at least 40 sheets in identical style to the headed paper which was in the drawer as separate sheets.
Sorry to be picky, but paper is STATIONERY, standing still is STATIONARY. Puffin
Title: Re: Michael Wright's testimony
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 26, 2013, 02:46:29 AM