So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Alfred R Jones]

So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?

[stephen25000]

So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?

Do you have verifiable data to show the McCann's have told the truth ?

Or do we take it on trust ? 

[slartibartfast]

So the next time a "sceptic" claims "most people don't believe the McCanns are telling the truth" I trust we will have some verifiable data to back that up?

I wasn't aware we were trying to prove it in court...

[Alice Purjorick]

Truly incomparable witnesses.

No wonder certain people are worried.

They probably thought they could go into Portugal and Johnny foreigner would believe every word they gave as 'witnesses'.

Oh!  I almost forgot the farce with Emma Loach's interpreter. She was so up to the mark that the judge had to help her out. It is beyond parody.

[Alfred R Jones]

I wasn't aware we were trying to prove it in court...

In the court of public opinion certainly.  And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events?  Do you think she is wrong?  Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point?  Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case?  Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?

[slartibartfast]

In the court of public opinion certainly.  And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events?  Do you think she is wrong?  Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point?  Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case?  Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?

Public opinion is not important, a witness going into court should be able to back up their assertions.

[Brietta]

Largely I was being facetious. Of course politicians are not beyond stage managing certain events and releases of information. By politicians I don't think it is unfair to say SY have a certain political element to their organisation... I do think it will be interesting to see if there is further SY activity around this exact time. You of course by your response think this is out of the question?

I would think it merely co-incidental.

I am of the opinion it would be great for events to get moving ... so I really don't give two hoots when or for what motivation SY and the PJ are propelled forward ... my main concern is not when they act but that they do act.

[Brietta]

A unequivocal wording imo would be "they have been eliminated from the inquiry".

Tell it to the judge ... she said it ... she is the expert ... so innocent it is.

[Alfred R Jones]

Public opinion is not important, a witness going into court should be able to back up their assertions.

So opinions are not valid in court, is that what you're saying?  Did the judge demand statistical evidence?

[Alice Purjorick]

In the court of public opinion certainly.  And how would you suggest Mrs Hubbard prove that most people in Portugal believe Amaral's version of events?  Do you think she is wrong?  Should she have paid for extensive market research to prove her point?  Do you not think the judge will realise that what she (and all the other witnesses both for and against Amaral) says is only an opinion, to be considered in the light of all the other evidence she may have accumulated regarding this case?  Why are you people simply unable to help yourselves mocking and ridiculing anyone who supports the McCanns?

It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.

"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies

[Wonderfulspam]

Tell it to the judge ... she said it ... she is the expert ... so innocent it is.

If only she'd tell us how she knows that.

Just think, she, like Mr Redwood, could tell us how she knows they are innocent & then the bile might cease.

If they told me I'd believe them, Britains finest & a learned judge, who wouldn't believe?

But it's got to be kept a secret for some reason hasn't it, 'not giving a running commentary'  n'all that.

Ah well, continuing bile it is then.

[Alfred R Jones]

It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.

"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies

Were you in court to witness these shenanigans first hand Alice?  Only, I can't help thinking it probably wasn't quite as mind bogglingly hilarious if you were actually there.  It's in the way you tell 'em, innit?

[slartibartfast]

So opinions are not valid in court, is that what you're saying?  Did the judge demand statistical evidence?

She probably just ignored it.

[Alfred R Jones]

She probably just ignored it.

Who probably just ignored what?

[Mr Gray]

It is not just the McCanns witnesses, Alf. The trial from the first day in court was a shambles on both sides and worthy of a comedy sketch. Just to keep the balance as it offends you so much, Alf, one of Dr Amaral's witnesses mumbled and grumbled because the right answer could conceivably drop his mate in it so the judge finished up answering the question for him. Two witnesses represented both sides (how does that work).
And whether you like it or not it is bleeding hilarious for a witnesses own appointed translator to be so inept that opposing counsel and the judge had to help her out (whichever side of the fence one is on). It is reminiscent of a Whitehouse/Enfield Julio Geordio sketch. Then one witness decided it would be good for a laugh to sit in a court in a foreign country and slag off the country's legal system and read from notes which was not permissible. It is just unfortunate that most of it was on one particular side.

"Well he would wouldn't he"
R.I.P Mandy Rice -Davies

Amaral's witnesses were far worse than you admit...who was the one who said WTF am I doing here...or words to that effect when he thought no one was listening. Opinions of the witness performance will be very much coloured by which side of the fence you sit. Don't try to pretend you are giving an objective observation.

The whole trial has been farcical and a poor advert for the Portuguese judicial system