The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial trial now set for September 2013

[Redblossom]

I dont think Cabrita lied in court...I. also dont think Rainbow criticised the McCanns
Frok whats posted no one has access to the report and their virws are based on what Cabrita said

Exaxtly so neither you or ferry an had anybusiness criticising what he said!!! What a spectacular back track but well done

[AnneGuedes]

I dont think Cabrita lied in court...I. also dont think Rainbow criticised the McCanns
Frok whats posted no one has access to the report and their virws are based on what Cabrita said

Using Google translator ?

[Redblossom]

Nobody is represented in the STJ, Ferryman, these judges judge judgements of minor courts.

Of course, ferryman is just twisting as per norm and form, it does get boring after a while

[Redblossom]

Not long now
 

[Mr Gray]

Using Google translator ?

No...posting from my phone

[AnneGuedes]

Rainbow's report does not constitute evidence against the McCanns

What it does constitute,  though,  is evidence that Amaral did not come to the conclusion that he did  'groundlessly'  ...  his opinions were based on information he had access to   ....    Rainbow's report was part of it

The PJ doesn't use profilers. There's nobody to tell a police officer "come on, it's against your deepest convictions, these people are RC like you, they're educated, they've lost a child they adored, that's real and terrible, this is why you reject the possibility they covered up, but they were afraid and probably did a very dubious choice, don't feel bad, think of it".

[Redblossom]

Reported.  And mods, why am I still on a 50% warning when this consistently abusive poster has had her warning level wiped?

Grow a backbone rachel and learn to take stuff on the chin

If you are on a 50 per cent watch for weeks and weeks, it means you said something reeeeal bad, what was it btw???

Oh yes your post was plankish truth be said


u cant beat the truth !!!!!!!

[AnneGuedes]

Reported.  And mods, why am I still on a 50% warning when this consistently abusive poster has had her warning level wiped?

You should think twice, Rachel, before pushing someone to murder. Even virtually, some expressions make one shiver.

[icabodcrane]

LOL!  More chance of plaiting custard, icabod.  We've been over the Rainbow business on here more than once.

As in the Michael Le Vell case, there is no shred of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann.  Like Mr Vell, they have had their reputations trashed based on precisely nothing.

The McCanns are not on trial Rachel   ...  no-one  has  to  present  'evidence against them'

Amaral has been brought to court by the McCanns,  and it is the McCanns who have to provide evidence to support their charge of libel

They have to prove that Amaral's thesis is wrong  (  and therefore libelous )

They have to prove that Madeleine did  NOT  die in the apartment   and that  they did  NOT  subsequently stage an abduction

How,  exactly,  are they going to do that  ?   

I just don't think it is possible to definitively  disprove  the conclusion Amaral has drawn as things stand at the moment 

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns are not on trial Rachel   ...  no-one  has  to  present  'evidence against them'

Amaral has been brought to court by the McCanns,  and it is the McCanns who have to provide evidence to support their charge of libel

They have to prove that Amaral's thesis is wrong  (  and therefore libelous )

They have to prove that Madeleine did  NOT  die in the apartment   and that that they did  NOT  subsequently stage an abduction

How,  exactly,  are they going to do that  ?   

I just don't think it is possible to definitely  disprove  the conclusion Amaral has drawn as things stand at the moment

As I have posted before...what level of proof do they have to supply..civil..balance of probsbilities......crminal...reasonable doubt.           ...orabsolute...100%...answer is you dont know

[AnneGuedes]

Or they have to prove, regardless of true or false Mr Amaral's theory is, that claiming death etc. wasn't in the public's interest and that the motive was to harm them.

[faithlilly]

Interesting piece in the Telegraph :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10303083/Kate-McCann-faces-former-police-chief-in-1m-libel-trial-over-Madeleines-disappearance.html

This from the article struck me especially :

'
'Mrs McCann's attendance in court is understood to be against the advice of Scotland Yard detectives who are attempting to launch their own investigation in the Algarve to try to solve the six-year mystery.'

[AnneGuedes]

Interesting piece in the Telegraph :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10303083/Kate-McCann-faces-former-police-chief-in-1m-libel-trial-over-Madeleines-disappearance.html

This from the article struck me especially :

'
'Mrs McCann's attendance in court is understood to be against the advice of Scotland Yard detectives who are attempting to launch their own investigation in the Algarve to try to solve the six-year mystery.'

I was wondering.. Mrs Duarte requested their presence in 2010, she "needed them". This time logically she wants at least one of them.
So Dave Edgar (this one I'll recognize) and Michael Wright (no idea what he looks like) will testify !

[AnneGuedes]

Has the money issue been their undoing?

Mrs Duarte told France Press reporter yesterday that the damages were 250 thousands euros for each of the 5 McCanns. This isn't how the money was distributed in the beginning. Does somebody know when this changed ?

[John]

Mrs Duarte told France Press reporter yesterday that the damages were 250 thousands euros for each of the 5 McCanns. This isn't how the money was distributed in the beginning. Does somebody know when this changed ?

€250k for each child?  That doesn't seem logical to me in a defamation case.  For a start how can you defame two youngsters who can barely read and write and secondly how can you defame a child who has been missing for over six years.  It all appears to be very symbolic if not shambolic to me.  Am I missing something here?  8-)(--)