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. => Lisbon Libel Trial Daily Reports and Judgements => Topic started by: John on September 14, 2013, 03:36:09 PM
-
Libel trial in Lisbon - Day 1
The following Reports are based on actual events at the libel hearings. We are as always indebted to Anne Guedes for taking the time to both attend the hearings and to compile these Reports. Thank you Anne 8@??)(
-
Libel trial Day 1 Witness No 1
Susan Hubbard (Midwife) evidence.
Anne has asked me to post the document in her absence.
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 1
The testimony as it happened...
(12.09.2013, 11am) Susan Hubbard Occupation midwife. She speaks in a combination of Portuguese (more) and English (less). Mrs Hubbard admits her friendship with Kate McCann can influence her evidence.
1) McCann family lawyer is the first to question the witness.
ID – In this trial we're discussing the effects on the McCann family of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book. As a close friend of KMC, can you tell how this family reacted to the thesis of the book?
SH answers that they are very strong persons, but any claims that their daughter is dead is terrible for them because it means she isn't looked for any more. She says the book finishes like it starts, not offering an alternative theory.
One of the defence lawyers asks precise questions and answers. The judge overrules.
Download pdf to read further.
Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith.
-
Thanks for the document, Anne
Keep up the good work!
-
Thank you Anne and John
-
Thanks Anne. Very informative 8((()*/
-
Its very useful to get a word for word report on events since when the press are allowed in you usually get their interpretation rather than what was said. The press were somewhat peeved on friday that they had nothing to send back to their editors. Shame for them poor dears!! @)(++(*
-
Yes Anne.
Thanks for the good work and information you have supplied.
8@??)(
-
I note that Anne's report has been downloaded 488 times so far which goes to show the tremendous interest that the trial has generated. I look forward to reading the next part.
Updated
-
Anne better watch in case the lady judge boots her out too. 8)-))) @)(++(*
-
Thank you all for being grateful !
I sent John for editing/correcting Emma Loach's and David Edgar's statements.
I'll "send" David Trickey and Angus McBride to-night.
-
Thanks Anne. Just reading your summary now.
-
Libel trial Day 1 Witness No 2
Emma Loach (Documentary film maker) evidence.
Libel Trial > McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 1 Witness No 2
The session was delayed because a journalist (TVI) was caught recording the session on her cell phone, the fear, according to the judge, being that it interferes with the Court's own recording. It seems that although the phone was "active" it wasn't recording. In any event, this incident had to be reported and dictating to the clerk which all takes time. All this appeared to be very much of an aside since many cell phones were on in the court room (switching ones phone off completely seems to equate to an amputation).
The testimony as it happened...
(12.09.2013, 3pm) Emma Loach is a documentary film maker and gives evidence in English. The interpreter translates the lawyers' questions for EL and then translates her responses from English to Portuguese for the lawyers and the judge who, in fact, do understand to the extent that they sometimes helped the interpreter, an English lady.
Download pdf for full Report...
Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith.
-
Thanks Anne and John ?{)(** Very interesting reading. A few incorrect things said by this witness imo. Noticeable also that they're not mentioning the newspapers.
-
Thanks Anne and John ?{)(** Very interesting reading. A few incorrect things said by this witness imo. Noticeable also that they're not mentioning the newspapers.
Yes, Ms Loach said a few incorrect things as if rightness wasn't at stake. Mrs Hubbard would turn her head once in a while to check whether what she said was helpful, but Ms Loach never did it and pronounced what I felt was a declaration of faith.
-
Faith is definitely the right word Anne I think.
Emma Loach seems to have forgotten her own film. As arguidos they couldn't speak? But they do speak in that film >@@(*&)
-
Faith is definitely the right word Anne I think.
Emma Loach seems to have forgotten her own film. As arguidos they couldn't speak? But they do speak in that film >@@(*&)
Is Emma Loach the one who made the documentary that misrepresented the Smith family's witness statements ?
-
Yes, she made that one.
-
Yes, she made that one.
Thanks Lyall ... and Jeremy Wilkins too ( his testimony was practically rewritten in his absense ! )
Quite apart from the fact that she clearly lacks professional integrity I can't fathom why this woman was shipped out to Lisbon as some sort of 'character' witness for the McCanns ... or the Parson's wife either, come to that
Neither of them had even met the McCanns prior to Madeleine going missing
I understand that Kate's mother is due to to take the stand to give her views on the distress Amaral's book caused her daughter, and that's fair enough ... she is in a position to know ... but two women who were barely aquainted with the McCanns ?
Surely there were better placed witnesses than those two the McCanns could have enlisted
-
Thanks Lyall ... and Jeremy Wilkins too ( his testimony was practically rewritten in his absense ! )
Quite apart from the fact that she clearly lacks professional integrity I can't fathom why this woman was shipped out to Lisbon as some sort of 'character' witness for the McCanns ... or the Parson's wife either, come to that
Neither of them had even met the McCanns prior to Madeleine going missing
I understand that Kate's mother is due to to take the stand to give her views on the distress Amaral's book caused her daughter, and that's fair enough ... she is in a position to know ... but two women who were barely aquainted with the McCanns ?
Surely there were better placed witnesses than those two the McCanns could have enlisted
There is no issue as to whether the Amaral book caused distress and hurt, the question is why? Was it out of guilt because of their bad parenting skills, was it because they knew that such revelations would have a dire effect on the fund or was it for some other yet unknown reason??
-
Amazing work, Anne
It's a real privilege to be able to read your reports
I especially appreciate your clarifications and explanations
-
There is no issue as to whether the Amaral book caused distress and hurt, the question is why? Was it out of guilt because of their bad parenting skills, was it because they knew that such revelations would have a dire effect on the fund or was it for some other yet unknown reason??
How is it calculated that Amaral's revelations had a dire effect on the fund? Are there figures to show this?
Seems that the McCanns and their witnesses, and SY, are all singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, as exemplified by Ms Loache in Anne's report:
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking
MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her.
This presupposes that everyone thought there was a good chance that she was alive until Amaral came along with his book. How do we know this? How many people ever thought the chances of her being alive after a few days or weeks were anything greater than a few percentage points?
-
How is it calculated that Amaral's revelations had a dire effect on the fund? Are there figures to show this?
Seems that the McCanns and their witnesses, and SY, are all singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, as exemplified by Ms Loache in Anne's report:
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking
MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her.
This presupposes that everyone thought there was a good chance that she was alive until Amaral came along with his book. How do we know this? How many people ever thought the chances of her being alive after a few days or weeks were anything greater than a few percentage points?
I was hoping Angus McBride, as a specialist of the media, would inform the court and present tangible elements on this topic.
Personally I think the disproportionate treatment of the arguido status, due to an exceptional context of media circus, had the worst effect. Instead of putting the status (no infamy at all) into perspective, the media presented the occurrence as an unpredictable turn of events : all of a sudden perfect victims became perfect suspects.
"What will people think ?" was the first reaction of Mrs McCann when she was told about the arguido status. And she was very right.
Comparatively Mr Amaral's book was no breaking news : those who believed went on believing, those who were sceptics went on being sceptics.
The McCanns understood this book was no danger and this is why they did nothing against it, whereas lots of resources were invested in their public image as soon as they were back to the UK in September 2007.
-
I was hoping Angus McBride, as a specialist of the media, would inform the court and present tangible elements on this topic.
Personally I think the disproportionate treatment of the arguido status, due to an exceptional context of media circus, had the worst effect. Instead of putting the status (no infamy at all) into perspective, the media presented the occurrence as an unpredictable turn of events : all of a sudden perfect victims became perfect suspects.
"What will people think ?" was the first reaction of Mrs McCann when she was told about the arguido status. And she was very right.
Comparatively Mr Amaral's book was no breaking news : those who believed went on believing, those who were sceptics went on being sceptics.
The McCanns understood this book was no danger and this is why they did nothing against it, whereas lots of resources were invested in their public image as soon as they were back to the UK in September 2007.
This is my view as well, Anne. Much as I support the McCanns in general terms, I think they're a bit off here.
-
This is my view as well, Anne. Much as I support the McCanns in general terms, I think they're a bit off here.
The public image is a thing, and nobody wants to be taken for what he/she isn't. Even here on this forum when somebody's aggressive I feel bad. Funny enough, the aggressive person could cross me in the street, not knowing who I'm, and smile to me..
But the private image is another one. This is the unique motive I can see in this trial. And I feel like saying stop ! Let's rewind it and clear it up. There's no crime at stake. But human beings' life. And you live only once.
-
Libel trial Day 1 Witness No 3
Dave Edgar (Private investigator) evidence.
Libel Trial > McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 1 Witness No 3
The testimony as it happened...
(12.09.2013, 5pm) David Edgar (Former RUC detective) hired by the McCanns as a private investigator from October 2008 to October 2011. Has only a professional relationship with the McCanns.
1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.
ID – After explaining the purpose of the trial, she asks what DE’s function was.
DE answers he tried to discover where Madeleine was.
ID – Have you previously worked with Portuguese people in the exercise of your functions ?
DE says he did.
Download pdf for full Report...
Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith.
-
Thank you so much Anne. Your report is very important.
I wished I had been in Lisbon but I dared not postpone work appointments when I thought this trial would be dismissed.
If we look at what is at stake, which is suing for a defamation crime (violation of personality rights, that are protected by our Constitution), I fail to understand how this Court can consider what is the level of the respondents’ responsibility when they were cleared from committing a crime, not by one, but by two higher courts (relation and supreme court).
I remember that at some time or another Isabel Duarte invoked “honor” and “image”; well, we know how difficult it is to measure how those rights can be damaged – that’s why there is a rule that establishes that it must be proved that a crime has been committed against said rights. As we know by the previous criminal trial, it was dismissed that such a crime was committed.
Nevertheless, according to the Civil Law there are cases where civil responsibility can be invoked even when an illicit was not committed (accidents, for instance), but in those cases it must be established a nexus of causality between the “accident” and the objective damages suffered by the claimants.
So far I haven’t seen any reports published by the Media that point to health problems, financial losses, actions towards the search for Madeleine,… directly resulting from the object of the claim.
In Portugal there are several cases where people or enterprises were compensated by damages caused by accidents but never for facts that were dismissed by the courts as non-criminal.
Is the court reassembling again today?! If so are you going to offer us again a report of it? I hope so.
Thank you very much Anne.
-
Is Isabel Duarte as good as some are making out?
-
Is Isabel Duarte as good as some are making out?
Some say she is good, some have seen her in diabolical defeated action
@)(++(*
When the mccanns first got to court back in 2010 she tried to suppress evidence, and failed
She also came up with the nonsensical clanger thatthere was proof that maddie was alive because...there had been sightings
Oh well
@)(++(*
-
She also came up with the nonsensical clanger thatthere was proof that maddie was alive because...there had been sightings
Could be alive, but even so.. I couldn't believe my ears..
-
I have just had a look at the download figures and note that Susan Hubbard's evidence file has been downloaded 876 times and that by Michael Wright which was only posted today some 260 times already.
I find that truly awesome.