Michael Wright's testimony

[icabodcrane]

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

[C.Edwards]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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  ? 

[C.Edwards]

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!>

[icabodcrane]

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  ? 

[icabodcrane]

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

[C.Edwards]

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!

[C.Edwards]

oh dear,  I wish you'd started another thread to make that point  C  Edwards   ...  I predict this one will now be hijacked and taken completely off topic

No probs. I've deleted the text from my reply. If you do the same it's gone :-)

[icabodcrane]

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

[LagosBen]

I've been impresed 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 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.

[icabodcrane]

Confiscate? She did no such thing. They were taken and copied for others to read them.

Yes you're right ...  she 'took'  them 

I will ammend my post

[C.Edwards]

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

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.

[DCI]

Yes you're right ...  she 'took'  them 

I will ammend my post

The Judge asks the court clerk to make photocopies (note: it's an A4 page, with parts underlined in green).

I haven't read, she took them?

[DCI]

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.

GA's lawyer, SO, interrupts asking the Judge to ask the witness what is the paper he is reading.

[icabodcrane]

The Judge asks the court clerk to make photocopies (note: it's an A4 page, with parts underlined in green).

I haven't read, she took them?

Enough with the semantics already  !

Michael Wright thought he could walk into court with  'notes'  to refer to when answering under oath

He was challenged and his  'notes' were photocopied and dished out to everyone concerned

I was commenting that I think the Judge was spot-on in making  that decision

Don't you aggree  ?