A Challenge.

[icabodcrane]

ID - Was a process formally investigated?

Why would ID ask her witness such a question if she knew her witness didn't know the answer to it?

Obviously ID knows the answer, so can't imagine her asking such a question if her witness didn't.

Oh I dunno  ...  she called  Alipio Ribereiro  and Melchoir Gomes  ...  what was the point of that  ?  ( looked like a balls up to me  )   

I think Isobel Duarte has put on a very poor show so far  (  isn't  she supposed to be a top- notch lawyer or summat  ?  )   

[C.Edwards]

Oh I dunno  ...  she called  Alipio Ribereiro  and Melchoir Gomes  ...  what was the point of that  ?  ( looked like a balls up to me  )   

I think Isobel Duarte has put on a very poor show so far  (  isn't  she supposed to be a top- notch lawyer or summat  ?  )

Too right. Having to be told to stop asking leading questions is a bit embarrassing for her really.  Overall almost akin to Mohammed Saïd al-Sahaf's performance in the Iraq conflict. (Otherwise known as "Comical Ali"). "There are no imperialist tanks in Baghdad, etc..." with pictures of tanks rolling in behind.

[Luz]

Unsurprisingly you miss the point entirely.

The point is that it is the role of the Judge and Amaral's defence lawyers, not some hyped-up armchair enthusiasts to do the asking.

The principal reason that I, for example, cannot find this holy grail is that I am not looking.

There are two or three reasons for that. Primarily its not my responsibility. But also I don't think the McCann lawyers are as daft as you hope. I credit all lawyers with a modicum of sense and thats all it would take to ensure that the requisite documentation was given to the court when Wright testified. Having brought him all the way to testify he may well have been asked to bring something from the police himself or he may have volunteered to do so. Its the kind of thing any sensible person would do if they were going to make such claims. Another reason I am not looking is that were I to spend my time looking and then find it and post it on a forum those actions would have no bearing on the case which is taking place in Portugal. I am not so delusional as to think that I have any influence, position or rights within this trial.

Unlike you and the OP, I have some confidence in the Portuguese Justice System. For example, they realised that Amaral was doing wrong and threw him off this case, they came to logical conclusions regarding the available evidence in the case (the kind of logic which Amaral has failed to apply) and they are not a lawless haphazard country, they run a reasonably good system as we do here.

I also do believe that the portuguese justice system works, sometimes. However the dismissal of Amaral from the case had nothing to do with the Portuguese Judicial System. He was put aside by the, then, Policía Judiciária National Director, which is a political appointed job. It was the Government that excluded Amaral from the investigation and not the Legal System.

[Luz]

Oh I dunno  ...  she called  Alipio Ribereiro  and Melchoir Gomes  ...  what was the point of that  ?  ( looked like a balls up to me  )   

I think Isobel Duarte has put on a very poor show so far  (  isn't  she supposed to be a top- notch lawyer or summat  ?  )

The point was to avoid them being called by the other part.

[Luz]

Isabel Duarte used to be (many years ago) one of the best lawyers in "freedom of expression and communication" Law. But after she became associated with Marinho Pinto, the President of the Bar Association, where she also holds a minor job, she hasn't done much work apart from the McCann.

[LagosBen]

This makes me despair ! How often do we see Portuguese politics dragged into this case by PT posters/Bloggers ?

It is about a missing child not which Party seeks to control Portugal 

[gilet]

Oh I dunno  ...  she called  Alipio Ribereiro  and Melchoir Gomes  ...  what was the point of that  ?  ( looked like a balls up to me  )   

I think Isobel Duarte has put on a very poor show so far  (  isn't  she supposed to be a top- notch lawyer or summat  ?  )

Did it? Not from where ID was sitting it didn't. There was, I believe real method, in what to you may appear to have been madness.

[icabodcrane]

Did it? Not from where ID was sitting it didn't. There was, I believe real method, in what to you may appear to have been madness.

Well will you tell us what you think was achieved in calling two witnesses who had nothing to say  ?

[Luz]

This makes me despair ! How often do we see Portuguese politics dragged into this case by PT posters/Bloggers ?

It is about a missing child not which Party seeks to control Portugal

Good of you to remember there is a child amidst this charade.

It was not me that designed the structure that controls police forces, criminal or others.  And it's you that is bringing politics here, I couldn't care less what political parties are or aren't in the Government - for me they are alike.

[carlymichelle]

Good of you to remember there is a child amidst this charade.

It was not me that designed the structure that controls police forces, criminal or others.  And it's you that is bringing politics here, I couldn't care less what political parties are or aren't in the Government - for me they are alike.

a  child luz  that whatever  befell little maddie  was not being  cared     for   as she should have been

[Jacinta]

And if GM didn't follow it up, then it can hardly be argued that it was viewed as a serious issue at the time and therefore can hardly have been the traumatic incident it has been made out to be since.  It's this relentless pursuit of emotional sentimentality that is undermining what little public sympathy remains for the McCanns I feel.

Yes I agree.

[gilet]

The point was to avoid them being called by the other part.

Sometimes I think things can't get much dafter, then a post like this appears.

And by avoiding that what exactly would be prevented. Are you not aware both sets of lawyers can cross examine witnesses?

[icabodcrane]

Sometimes I think things can't get much dafter, then a post like this appears.

And by avoiding that what exactly would be prevented. Are you not aware both sets of lawyers can cross examine witnesses?

Again  ...  what do you think was achieved in calling two witnesses who had nothing to say   ? 

I am genuinley baffled as to why those witnesses were called and you imply that you have an explanation for it

Will you tell us what it is   ? 

[Luz]

Sometimes I think things can't get much dafter, then a post like this appears.

And by avoiding that what exactly would be prevented. Are you not aware both sets of lawyers can cross examine witnesses?

And don't you know that cross-examination is confined by the subjects that were brought up by the litigator?!