UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
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: John on October 03, 2013, 10:36:45 AM
-
Day 6 at the McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel hearing in Lisbon couldn't have been much worse for McCann family lawyer Isabel Duarte and her faithful assistant Ricardo Alfonso.
Kate McCann's mother, Susan Healey, was scheduled to testify on day 2 of the trial but the Judge never made it back to the Court for the afternoon session. Worse was yet to come as an oversight by Mrs Duarte meant that although Mrs Healey again returned to the Court yesterday she was refused the opportunity to take the stand. Third time lucky perhaps you might say but that is not how the Portuguese Justice System works. Truth is that Mrs Healey may not now have an opportunity to give evidence to the trial.
For his part, Gerry McCann has now appeared at the hearings over two days, he attended last Friday and again yesterday accompanied by Mrs Healey and his sister Patricia Cameron. Gerry never intended to testify but following a change in the Law (a plaintiff can now give evidence in a libel case) he decided to do so. Off course all of this might well be academic since it is the Judge who interprets the rulebook as to who will or will not give evidence and she appears to be becoming increasingly irritated at events. Whether Gerry McCann will ultimately be allowed to testify is as yet still to be determined.
And as if it wasn't complicated enough, it now appears that former PJ Coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, also wants to get in on the act and has applied to testify on his own behalf. Whether the good Judge will allow it is akin to so much in this case, an unknown quantity.
Finally, it seems the action is not confined to the courtroom if events outside the Palace of Justice yesterday are anything to go by with McCann lawyer Isabel Duarte launching a screaming tirade towards our own correspondent. The reason? Simply because she dared take a photo of the disheveled Duarte and her assistant Ricardo Alfonso.
It wasn't to end there though. Several hours later this exchange of words took a sinister new twist with Alfonso posting an ominous threat against our correspondent on twitter. One has to wonder is this really the conduct one would expect from professionals involved in such a high profile case?
The McCanns have been plagued throughout their search for Madeleine by incompetents and unprofessional conduct by those they have contracted. By the looks of it they have managed it all over again.
-
Bloody hell John ... what a shambles
What 'threat' did the McCann lawyer make to Anne on twitter ?
-
Yesterday the mainstream press in Britain referred to Alan Robert Pike as 'a psychologist'.
If indeed there is a 'Comedy of Errors', that was certainly another one.
They should have read Anna Guedes' trial notes, when ARP was questioned by Guerra e Paz:
GP - What exactly is your profession?
AP - Answers he is a ‘Crisis Counsellor’.
GP - Asks whether he is a psychologist?
AP - Says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).
GP - Asks again "Are you a psychologist?"
AP – Says ‘No’.
-
Totally agree with the OP, bit of a train wreck so far!
.... erroneous observation removed ....
-
SAY WHAT !
Are you kidding Red ? ... you must be surely !
No I am not, and coming from Isabel Duartes own assistant!! The tweet is around somewhere I will see if I can find it
-
I somewhat doubt that Anne meant that literally. Perhaps she could post the tweets in question to clarify.
The tweets I saw definitely were not threatening violence. I think Anne just used an over dramatic English word.
I think we should be careful not to allege anybody did make a violent threat. 8((()*/
-
In Portugal it is legitimate to take pictures of public spaces and whoever are in them, as long as the use of such pictures is not for illegal or criminal purposes.
The definition of public space in the Justice Palace, as well as in any other Tribunal, is every space outside of the court rooms (corridors, lounge, etc) and obviously in the exterior of the building.
Anne did nothing illegal and she is free to use Mrs. Duarte's image in any piece of information she is composing about the case, which is also public.
Mrs. Duarte's assistant threats are illegal and if Anne wishes she can prosecute him for harassment.
-
.... remove quote to deleted post ...
You're well aware that the photograph in question was taken outside the building. The above is irrelevant.
-
Even if it had not been decided to make the trial accessible to the Press, by definition, all areas outside a Court room are public - that's the law.
-
Why did you say this, John: Simply because she dared take a photo of the disheveled Duarte
This photo posted here this morning certainly did not show Duarte as "disheveled"!
-
This whole trial is a parody, it should never have been accepted in a court room, when in a previous trial it was considered that the basic rights of the applicants had not been harmed.
Recently a similar case about a book, Blood Diamonds, was immediately dismissed. The angolan generals, identified in the book as having tortured, enslaved and killed workers in the diamond mines, attempted to sue the journalist that wrote the book, Rafael Marques. The portuguese Public ministry dismissed it because it was considered that the book was covered by the freedom of expression right.
-
.... removed deleted quote ...
The photograph was taken outside the building. Duarte was pictured surrounded by Journalists on the court steps. The photo is still available to see on another thread. In fact, you yourself linked to it this morning.
-
... removed deleted quote ...
Outside the court room, every space is PUBLIC, except WCs obviously.
-
I have also taken a screen shot of the forty minute gap around her post where the photograph was posted.
Why? For what purpose?
you're still wrong about the photo in question though. Duarte had a hissy fit about a photo taken outside.
-
The tweets I saw definitely were not threatening violence. I think Anne just used an over dramatic English word.
I think we should be careful not to allege anybody did make a violent threat. 8((()*/
But some seem to have taken Anne's comment literally.
Not difficult to see how myths are born...
-
But some seem to have taken Anne's comment literally.
Not difficult to see how myths are born...
8((()*/ So true.
-
URL of Anne's admission before it is removed:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2202.msg80795#msg80795
I have screen shot it anyway so removal now is pointless.
Arent you getting your photos mixed up, that referred to a picture of susan healy standing at the doorway to the entrance iirc, so not inside, what a much ado about nothing
-
Outside the court room, every space is PUBLIC, except WCs obviously.
Can you clarify for me please Luz, it's ok to take pictures inside the court building, just not the actually court room?
-
Someone here explained Portuguese Law yesterday as to why the trial was taking place. The first trial disposed with the criminal libel and liability, this trial is about the civil libel and liability.
I've been saying that for ages. But when the criminal aspect of it was found not valid, the civil liability is almost if not impossible to prove when there is no physical or objective damages that can be attributed to the event.
-
On reviewing the screenshot, it is not of Duarte, but of Mrs Healy. Definitely inside, definitely admitted by anne that it was illegal.
8)-))) Always check the evidence first.... and then check it again, prosecutor ?>)()<
-
On reviewing the screenshot, it is not of Duarte, but of Mrs Healy. Definitely inside, definitely admitted by anne that it was illegal.
So you finally accept that you were wrong? I might take a screen shot of this!
-
Can you clarify for me please Luz, it's ok to take pictures inside the court building, just not the actually court room?
Yes it is. There has been plenty of occasions when journalists photograph and video in the atrium and in the corridors, sometimes even at the door of the Court Room with the door open.
-
@)(++(* we're Famous !
How very petty of the McCann's lawyers ... "Take that photo of Isabel down or we'll sue you"
Jeezus ... was there ever a pair as litigeous as the McCanns
youd think they had more serious priorities
-
I was not wrong about the substance. You cannot see the woman's face as she is halfway through the door. I only identified her by her clothing.
Anne took a photo, knowing it was illegal, sent it here and had it published. It has been removed.
Yes it is. There has been plenty of occasions when journalists photograph and video in the atrium and in the corridors, sometimes even at the door of the Court Room with the door open.
Still wrong as Luz has just clarified for us. The photo That was of duaute was taken outside, the alleged photo taken inside wouldn't have been illegal anyway.
Thank you Luz.
-
youd think they had more serious priorities
Maybe it was a shot across the bows ... you know, letting us know they're 'watching us'
Anne and her uncensored court reports ( which are all over the internet now ) has really thrown a spanner in the works
-
Such unbridled megalomania.
What do you think the footfall here and on CMOMM is- a few thousand a day?
Well the McCann lawyers seem to think we are worth some attention
-
They have not sued:
Forums, Bloggers, Tweeters and other flea bites.
They have sued with people getting traction with libel.
My understanding was that they were advised to balance exposure caused by a trial which could be large against exposure on the web which was seen as minimal.
Only the Express Group, one TV Channel and some old solicitor from Essex were getting traction, and so the cost of excess press coverage for a week or so afterwards was worth it.
This does not mean that they may not go for any other person or entity getting traction in future.
This current threat is not of the McCann's doing.
First rule of law- don't pissoff a lawyer!
If exposure on the web is "minimal" what case do they have in Lisbon?
Mr Amaral had negligible to no presence in UK mass media after the shelving of the case.
Big flaw in the case here.
-
This whole case is all about marketing. They keep promoting situations that give them their 15 minutes fame with the Media.
I've been trying to recover, unsuccessfully, where I saw written that Isabel Duarte had asked that Gerald MacCann be heard in Court as a substitute for 2 of her witnesses that she had lost. If this is true, I think those 2 witnesses would be Mrs. Healy and Marinho Pinto. Obviously as she can't know if Marinho Pinto is going to show up or not in November, she would rather sacrifice Mrs. S. Healy, in my opinion.
Whatever happens the show must go on, and I fear we will have a lot more ridiculous incidents to comment. I call it ridiculous because none of this has to do with justice or with the search for a missing child, but with greed and resentment.
-
Maybe it was a shot across the bows ... you know, letting us know they're 'watching us'
Anne and her uncensored court reports ( which are all over the internet now ) has really thrown a spanner in the works
theyve watched internet forums from the beginning
Dont see why its a spanner, they wanted it open to the media/public and not closed....they got what they asked for. The MSM is a dying breed of info over the www now......including their poor kids alledgedly hearing their friends at school talking about it...whose fault is that....
-
I have already deleted one account today for posting falsehoods so be warned.
First off, an unspecified threat was made on twitter stating that if his photo wasn't removed by noon that he would take further action. Read into that whatever you may.
Secondly, the photo of the individual concerned was taken outside the court precincts (a public place) and with their full knowledge.
Finally, please ensure posts are relevant as non topic posts are routinely removed.
-
in your humble opinion.
It's more than that. I can back it up with K McCann herself as a witness. Their case against Mr Amaral in Lisbon is weak, and instead they are trying to blame him for what their other children may see online in the future. But is Mr Amaral or the other three defendants responsible for what other people put online?
Their case is really against the internet.
-
@)(++(* we're Famous !
How very petty of the McCann's lawyers ... "Take that photo of Isabel down or we'll sue you"
Jeezus ... was there ever a pair as litigeous as the McCanns
LOL I knew it wouldn't be long before the blame was diverted onto the McCanns. Typical.
-
You do realise that Anne's belief that an alleged photo is illegal doesn't actually make it illegal don't you?
-
no one CARES if Anne took a photo where she wasnt supposed to...if she did...get your priorities right
Quibbling over irrelevent details is a classic propaganda technique ... as is 'fallacy of presupposition' ... asking for an explanation of something not yet established
It's all designed to distract
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/02/article-2441552-1875F17F00000578-487_634x607.jpg)
Gerry McCann and mother in law Susan Healey chat with lawyer Isabel Duarte yesterday prior to the hearing commencing.
It appears that press photographers are taking photographs inside the court building using telephoto lenses as evidenced by this Daily Mail example.
-
Quibbling over irrelevent details is a classic propaganda technique ... as is 'fallacy of presupposition' ... asking for an explanation of something not yet established
It's all designed to distract
I know and its entirely tedious, obvious, time consuming and ultimately futile..........as always......must attempt to stop being tempted to respond to some of the stupidest remarks
-
I know and its entirely tedious, obvious, time consuming and ultimately futile..........as always......must attempt to stop being tempted to respond to some of the stupidest remarks
When you see misleading falsehoods on the board it is hard not to challenge it, I know ( but as you say, when it is deliberate distruption, engaging is pointless )
Admin clearly have a handle on it though, and won't put up with it ( it's what makes this forum a cut-above )
-
When you see misleading falsehoods on the board it is hard not to challenge it, I know ( but as you say, when it is deliberate distruption, engaging is pointless )
Admin clearly have a handle on it though, and won't put up with it ( it's what makes this forum a cut-above )
agree in some of the threads questioning the mcanns actions/behaviour people disrupt it saying the mcanns are innocent etc but that is not what the thread is about so yes this is a well modded forum
-
This is you final warning Saepe Sepe. Continue to disrupt and your account will be removed.
Absolutely agree. There are nearly 200 people following the forum presently with some 50 members logged in. I suggest a zero tolerance approach to any disruption.
-
you mods do a awesome job angelo 8@??)(
-
It seems to grow more comical with each sitting.
-
It seems to grow more comical with each sitting.
Indeed Duarte could do a turn on the 'Comedy Channel'.
-
Indeed Duarte could do a turn on the 'Comedy Channel'.
Well Tavares made a fool of Amaral yesterday but how important is this trial...it seems whoever loses can appeal...I think the SY investigation is much more important now to the McCanns. If the McCanns lose I don't think they will bother appealing, but I think amaral would
-
Indeed Duarte could do a turn on the 'Comedy Channel'.
Do you think your insults of this lady, make you look good?
I've just spoken to a Copper, and he thinks not @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*