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. => Topic started by: icabodcrane on September 27, 2013, 04:04:20 AM
-
John has just posted the transcript ( Thank you Anne and John )
She is certainly the most combative witness so far
Before her witness statement is given the Judge asks if her 'public controversial position' with Goncalo Amaral' will influence her testimony
Maria Isabel Stilwell says her concience tells her "No", but adds that she hopes not
Does anyone here know what this 'public controversial position' with Goncalo Amaral IS ?
The Judge seemed to be aware from the start that this was a 'hostile' witness ... does anyone know where the hostility comes from though ?
-
It is my understanding that she has already been involved in court cases involving Gonçalo Amaral thus why the judge asked her if there were any current live proceedings between them.
-
I find lots of that transcript quite remarkable.
The first thing that strikes me is that Isabella Stilwell (never aware I've heard of her before reading this) comes across as someone who has an agenda and desperately wants to put across that message almost to the point of disregarding what question she has actually been asked to answer. The really spooky thing is that her words, almost verbatim at times, sound incredibly similar to many of the favourite mantras that the McCann supporters use all the time.
On googling a bit I came across the Destak article from May 2009: (http://www.destak.pt/opiniao/28576-porque-deixa-a-pj-que-falem-por-ela (http://www.destak.pt/opiniao/28576-porque-deixa-a-pj-que-falem-por-ela))
Yesterday in the early hours I saw, on SIC, the interview that Oprah did with the McCann couple. I felt that by doing that broadcast, that television station was, for the first time in a long time, rebalancing the scales.
Over the last few months, part of the media seems to be completely conditioned by the theory that the parents murdered their daughter and simulated an abduction, no matter how absurd that is. Apart from a complete lack of evidence, what would lead someone who, according to this theory, committed the perfect crime, to keep calling attention upon themselves?
Even presuming that they are people without scruples, compulsive liars and other epithets that they have been called, without those who accuse them being able to sustain the accusations, we have to agree that even for criminals that would be taking things too far.
But beyond the anguish that any mother or father feels just by imagining themselves in a similar situation, that which continues to cause me the most perplexity is why so many people seem to prefer to believe that the parents are guilty, the most sick possibility of them all, especially after the most expensive investigation that was ever made in Portugal failed to point anything whatsoever against any of them, even forcing to lift the arguido status and to archive the case?
And no, please don’t mention again the serious mistake of leaving the children alone, which they have punished themselves over and over again, because it doesn’t equal making someone into a murderer, and certainly doesn’t deserve this kind of punishment.
There are only two explanations. The first one comes from sociologists and is called the Fair World Syndrome, which results from us finding it unbearable to believe that bad things can happen to good people. In other words, we prefer to abandon the victim, in the belief that she got what she deserved. Which means that us, who don’t leave our children alone, can sleep in peace and not think about it any further.
The second one is related to the role that former PJ investigator Gonçalo Amaral has been playing. It sincerely shocks me that both the Republic’s prosecutor and the PJ director keep their silence, while a former officer, who was removed from the case, makes absolute accusations, almost as if he was the Portuguese police’s spokesman.
Why and until when?
A lot of her court testimony seems to be lifted straight from this piece. Furthermore many of the pro-McCann arguments/complaints over the years seem to have been lifted straight from this piece! If, say, gilet had posted the exact piece above, or even parts of it, it would have been completely in keeping with their posting style - it's uncanny. Maybe we need to out gilet as Stilwell? 8(0(*
That aside... the point for me in all this is the proving of "damaged the search". This is such a woolly definition and I cannot see an easy way of proving it. Firstly they'd need to establish a definitive "search" (including dates and scope) in order to have something to be damaged. Then they'd have to explain away all those sightings that came in AFTER Amaral's book came out. Then they'd have to quantify the damage (this would be virtually impossible) and all they've done so far is have a few witnesses play the "emotions" card and state their opinions (without, it would appear, much hard evidence other than a few vague references to viewing figures).
They could get 100 people on that stand saying they were searching daily until Amaral's book came out, at which point they stopped and Amaral's team could find another 100 who would say the opposite. There's no way that I can see that the McCann team can prove this allegation of a "damaged search" as there are simply too many variables involved. I suppose the proof will be in the judgment. The portuguese system continues to baffle me so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the McCanns win their case because a friend's hairdresser's dog walker's cousin's wife's friend's mother said Amaral's eyes were too close together and she stopped looking for Madeleine as soon as she realised that.
If you do a google for "Isabel Stilwell amaral" (without the quotes) then you'll see some Destak articles. If you use google translate on these then it seems that a lot of Portuguese are really not very happy with Ms. Stilwell and her opinions. I daresay that the Madeleine Foundation or some forum or other will be accused of having stirred up a campaign to downvote/comment on her pieces (in Portuguese of course) and this in no way reflects the thoughts of most Portuguese...
-
I find lots of that transcript quite remarkable.
The first thing that strikes me is that Isabella Stilwell (never aware I've heard of her before reading this) comes across as someone who has an agenda and desperately wants to put across that message almost to the point of disregarding what question she has actually been asked to answer. The really spooky thing is that her words, almost verbatim at times, sound incredibly similar to many of the favourite mantras that the McCann supporters use all the time.
On googling a bit I came across the Destak article from May 2009: (http://www.destak.pt/opiniao/28576-porque-deixa-a-pj-que-falem-por-ela (http://www.destak.pt/opiniao/28576-porque-deixa-a-pj-que-falem-por-ela))
A lot of her court testimony seems to be lifted straight from this piece. Furthermore many of the pro-McCann arguments/complaints over the years seem to have been lifted straight from this piece! If, say, gilet had posted the exact piece above, or even parts of it, it would have been completely in keeping with their posting style - it's uncanny. Maybe we need to out gilet as Stilwell? 8(0(*
That aside... the point for me in all this is the proving of "damaged the search". This is such a woolly definition and I cannot see an easy way of proving it. Firstly they'd need to establish a definitive "search" (including dates and scope) in order to have something to be damaged. Then they'd have to explain away all those sightings that came in AFTER Amaral's book came out. Then they'd have to quantify the damage (this would be virtually impossible) and all they've done so far is have a few witnesses play the "emotions" card and state their opinions (without, it would appear, much hard evidence other than a few vague references to viewing figures).
They could get 100 people on that stand saying they were searching daily until Amaral's book came out, at which point they stopped and Amaral's team could find another 100 who would say the opposite. There's no way that I can see that the McCann team can prove this allegation of a "damaged search" as there are simply too many variables involved. I suppose the proof will be in the judgment. The portuguese system continues to baffle me so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the McCanns win their case because a friend's hairdresser's dog walker's cousin's wife's friend's mother said Amaral's eyes were too close together and she stopped looking for Madeleine as soon as she realised that.
If you do a google for "Isabel Stilwell amaral" (without the quotes) then you'll see some Destak articles. If you use google translate on these then it seems that a lot of Portuguese are really not very happy with Ms. Stilwell and her opinions. I daresay that the Madeleine Foundation or some forum or other will be accused of having stirred up a campaign to downvote/comment on her pieces (in Portuguese of course) and this in no way reflects the thoughts of most Portuguese...
Very interesting.
Thanks for that C. Edwards. 8((()*/
-
Great post CE. I find this accusation that the search for Madeleine was impeded by Amarals actions somewhat remarkable if not totally bizarre given that even now some 6 years on there is no searching because the McCanns won't spend the money. Wasn't that why the Madeleine fund was supposed to have been set up?? Searching apparently has taken on a whole new meaning, a gold plated 24 carat one.
-
Why was she a witness in the first place?
Thirded, good post CE, as always
-
On this point:
That aside... the point for me in all this is the proving of "damaged the search". This is such a woolly definition and I cannot see an easy way of proving it. Firstly they'd need to establish a definitive "search" (including dates and scope) in order to have something to be damaged. Then they'd have to explain away all those sightings that came in AFTER Amaral's book came out. Then they'd have to quantify the damage (this would be virtually impossible) and all they've done so far is have a few witnesses play the "emotions" card and state their opinions (without, it would appear, much hard evidence other than a few vague references to viewing figures).
I'd agree that "damaged the search" seems to be a woolly definition, or at least a broad one. And I can't see an easy way of proving or quantifying it, either.
However, I would hope that the judge establishes Madeleine's legal rights as a basis (whatever they are considered to be under Portuguese law).
Even though I sometimes find the UK system to be excessive in one direction, I find it difficult to understand the need to prove and quantify the damage by a former coordinator (who was only on the case for 5 months, but who has a certain credibility due to his involvement and professional experience) insisting that she is dead and the accompanying allegations, based on what definitely seems to be - at best - a flawed understanding of crucial aspects.
However wounded his pride may have been, there is still a missing child. And I would hope that she has rights as well.
-
John has just posted the transcript ( Thank you Anne and John )
She is certainly the most combative witness so far
Before her witness statement is given the Judge asks if her 'public controversial position' with Goncalo Amaral' will influence her testimony
Maria Isabel Stilwell says her concience tells her "No", but adds that she hopes not
Does anyone here know what this 'public controversial position' with Goncalo Amaral IS ?
The Judge seemed to be aware from the start that this was a 'hostile' witness ... does anyone know where the hostility comes from though ?
Isabel Stilwell is a wonderful writer, I have all of her historic portraits of portuguese queens, and I recommend her books.
However I think that she never overcame the fact that her brothers were more protected by her family. Her whole life was dedicated to prove that she could do better than her brothers in spite of being a woman.
She is divided between her british heritage and her portuguese upbringing, and I think she feels empathy with Mrs. McCann against the big bad wolf of a man that is Mr. Amaral.
Her chronicles about this subject lost all the objectivity that a journalist should keep, in my opinion she is about to loose her credibility as a professional.
Edited to take my post out of the quoted one. Sorry.
-
@ Luz
Her chronicles about this subject lost all the objectivity that a journalist should keep, in my opinion she is about to loose her credibility as a professional.
Which journalists have been objective in this case, do you think?
-
@ Luz
Her chronicles about this subject lost all the objectivity that a journalist should keep, in my opinion she is about to loose her credibility as a professional.
Which journalists have been objective in this case, do you think?
So far none.
-
So far none.
Oh, Ok.
Would that include those writing for CdaM, 24 Horas, O Bola, Seminario do whatever, or hosting Júlia's matinée show as well?
-
Oh, Ok.
Would that include those writing for CdaM, 24 Horas, O Bola, Seminario do whatever, or hosting Júlia's matinée show as well?
It includes Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, the Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, Express,...and all the other rags that have been publishing trash about this case.
-
Quote from: Carana on Today at 12:39:11 PM
Oh, Ok.
Would that include those writing for CdaM, 24 Horas, O Bola, Seminario do whatever, or hosting Júlia's matinée show as well?
It includes Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, the Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, Express,...and all the other rags that have been publishing trash about this case.
And the PT ones... or not?
-
Great post CE. I find this accusation that the search for Madeleine was impeded by Amarals actions somewhat remarkable if not totally bizarre given that even now some 6 years on there is no searching because the McCanns won't spend the money. Wasn't that why the Madeleine fund was supposed to have been set up?? Searching apparently has taken on a whole new meaning, a gold plated 24 carat one.
Angelo
What a narrow and mean perspective you have. You are on about money , money, money all the time.
The Mccanns very sensibly are allowing SY to do the searching at the moment.
You dont know, I dont know ... but it may well be that they have been instructed to allow SY to get on with it ... and not interfere in any way.
-
That aside... the point for me in all this is the proving of "damaged the search". This is such a woolly definition and I cannot see an easy way of proving it. Firstly they'd need to establish a definitive "search" (including dates and scope) in order to have something to be damaged. Then they'd have to explain away all those sightings that came in AFTER Amaral's book came out. Then they'd have to quantify the damage (this would be virtually impossible) and all they've done so far is have a few witnesses play the "emotions" card and state their opinions (without, it would appear, much hard evidence other than a few vague references to viewing figures).
They could get 100 people on that stand saying they were searching daily until Amaral's book came out, at which point they stopped and Amaral's team could find another 100 who would say the opposite. There's no way that I can see that the McCann team can prove this allegation of a "damaged search" as there are simply too many variables involved. I suppose the proof will be in the judgment. The portuguese system continues to baffle me so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the McCanns win their case because a friend's hairdresser's dog walker's cousin's wife's friend's mother said Amaral's eyes were too close together and she stopped looking for Madeleine as soon as she realised that.
Very much in agreement, C. Edwards.
Question is why the McCanns haven't addressed any of these questions or provided any real evidence for anything now they finally have their day in court. It's baffling.
Is there some aspect of Portuguese law that they are relying on in presenting their case that obviates the need for these considerations? Perhaps one of our Portuguese friends can help us out here?
-
A question for Anne:
In Portugal, good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people - according to Maria Isabel Stilwell.
No Judaeo-Christian tradition in Portugal, then, Anne? Thought the Iberian peninsula had been Christianised since Roman times...
-
Very much in agreement, C. Edwards.
Question is why the McCanns haven't addressed any of these questions or provided any real evidence for anything now they finally have their day in court. It's baffling.
Is there some aspect of Portuguese law that they are relying on in presenting their case that obviates the need for these considerations? Perhaps one of our Portuguese friends can help us out here?
There is of course the possibility that the evidence is being provided but not recorded. However having seen some references from the judge asking for evidence it would perhaps appear not.
Another related point - Gerry McCann saying that he and Kate of all people should know how the search has been affected. With respect, I don't see how this follows logically. So far via their witnesses in court or even prior to that online they appear unable to establish just what "the search" is. They cannot possibly expect to be able to demonstrate that an undefined "something" has been damaged, they would need to directly specify "the search" and then empirically define just how Amaral's book has damaged it. Then if they managed that, they'd need to demonstrate just why they see themselves as arbiters of this nebulous search and are therefore entitled to compensation for said damage.
Personally I see them on somewhat sticky ground there. Their failure to take part (beyond some confused reports about where Gerry may or may not have been) in the easily-defined physical search for Madeleine on the night of her disappearance doesn't exactly put them forward as having any kind of ownership of the earliest definable search and beyond that they've just seemed to sit back and make poor decision after poor decision on how to spend the fund money with a whole raft of undesirables and, frankly, con merchants engaged to carry out "a search". What were they doing? Pounding the streets? Calling people? If I'd been the McCanns I'd have been insisting on a whole lot of paperwork proving the diligences being carried out on their behalf for lots of money so that I had some kind of record of what had been going on. If they do have this kind of record, they haven't appeared to put it forward to the court just yet.
Furthermore it's a question of defining "by how much" the search if, indeed, "the search" can be defined has been damaged. Would they have expected more people to have called in far-fetched sightings? How do they quantify this? They'd need to do a MASSIVE survey - world-wide - and try and establish whether people had a) heard of Amaral's book, b) read it and c) stopped searching because of it.
How many of you reading this have searched? I haven't. I never had the slightest inclination to, neither did I keep my eye open when out and about for blonde children that could be Madeleine (quite frankly if you're looking for a reluctant and/or sullen child at many family outing venues you'd be kept rather busy). I would hazard a guess that the huge majority of the world are not and never have been searching (after the initial physical search, of course) for Madeleine other than a few that probably mean well but are the kind that like their 15 minutes of fame in the Daily Mail. How do the McCanns prove that anyone that read Amaral's book didn't already share his conviction and weren't searching anyway?
The whole thing is a complete debacle. It's a nonsensical lawsuit. I understand the gist of the case and what they want to try to be seen to be achieving, but the law doesn't work on intentions, it works on solid cases and the McCanns, like Tony Bennet earlier this year, simply don't have one that I can see.
-
There is of course the possibility that the evidence is being provided but not recorded. However having seen some references from the judge asking for evidence it would perhaps appear not.
Another related point - Gerry McCann saying that he and Kate of all people should know how the search has been affected. With respect, I don't see how this follows logically. So far via their witnesses in court or even prior to that online they appear unable to establish just what "the search" is. They cannot possibly expect to be able to demonstrate that an undefined "something" has been damaged, they would need to directly specify "the search" and then empirically define just how Amaral's book has damaged it. Then if they managed that, they'd need to demonstrate just why they see themselves as arbiters of this nebulous search and are therefore entitled to compensation for said damage.
Personally I see them on somewhat sticky ground there. Their failure to take part (beyond some confused reports about where Gerry may or may not have been) in the easily-defined physical search for Madeleine on the night of her disappearance doesn't exactly put them forward as having any kind of ownership of the earliest definable search and beyond that they've just seemed to sit back and make poor decision after poor decision on how to spend the fund money with a whole raft of undesirables and, frankly, con merchants engaged to carry out "a search". What were they doing? Pounding the streets? Calling people? If I'd been the McCanns I'd have been insisting on a whole lot of paperwork proving the diligences being carried out on their behalf for lots of money so that I had some kind of record of what had been going on. If they do have this kind of record, they haven't appeared to put it forward to the court just yet.
Furthermore it's a question of defining "by how much" the search if, indeed, "the search" can be defined has been damaged. Would they have expected more people to have called in far-fetched sightings? How do they quantify this? They'd need to do a MASSIVE survey - world-wide - and try and establish whether people had a) heard of Amaral's book, b) read it and c) stopped searching because of it.
How many of you reading this have searched? I haven't. I never had the slightest inclination to, neither did I keep my eye open when out and about for blonde children that could be Madeleine (quite frankly if you're looking for a reluctant and/or sullen child at many family outing venues you'd be kept rather busy). I would hazard a guess that the huge majority of the world are not and never have been searching (after the initial physical search, of course) for Madeleine other than a few that probably mean well but are the kind that like their 15 minutes of fame in the Daily Mail. How do the McCanns prove that anyone that read Amaral's book didn't already share his conviction and weren't searching anyway?
The whole thing is a complete debacle. It's a nonsensical lawsuit. I understand the gist of the case and what they want to try to be seen to be achieving, but the law doesn't work on intentions, it works on solid cases and the McCanns, like Tony Bennet earlier this year, simply don't have one that I can see.
I made a similar series of points in another thread this morning, C.Edwards, and agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.
Just want to add that despite in general terms the considerable logical and strategic difficulties for the McCanns in producing supporting evidence for their arguments, there would be a certain amount of information useful - necessary perhaps - for their case that would actually have been relatively easily procurable: reports from detectives, for example, on how specifically their searches had been impeded by an alleged Amaral effect. No such reports seem to exist, of course, because neither the various detectives on the case, nor anyone else, failed in their task in finding Madeleine because of anything to do with the thesis of Amaral. If they had done, they would have been sure to point the finger.
-
A question for Anne:
In Portugal, good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people - according to Maria Isabel Stilwell.
No Judaeo-Christian tradition in Portugal, then, Anne? Thought the Iberian peninsula had been Christianised since Roman times...
I found Maria Stilwell's homily rather odd too, but more because it is a contradiction to one of the central claims in the McCanns legal case ... that Amaral's book has damaged their reputations by claiming they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance
Yet here is Ms Stilwell saying that the reason people believe that the McCanns are culpable is because they 'NEED' to believe that ... they cling to the belief that 'bad things don't happen to good people' in order to feel safe themselves, she protests, and therefore conclude that the McCanns ( unlike themselves ) must be 'bad'
If she is correct, though, then people would have held the McCann's responsible whether Amaral had written his book or not
-
I found Maria Stilwell's homily rather odd too, but more because it is a contradiction to one of the central claims in the McCanns legal case ... that Amaral's book has damaged their reputations by claiming they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance
Yet here is Ms Stilwell saying that the reason people believe that the McCanns are culpable is because they 'NEED' to believe that ... they cling to the belief that 'bad things don't happen to good people' in order to feel safe themselves, she protests, and therefore conclude that the McCanns ( unlike themselves ) must be 'bad'
If she is correct, though, then people would have held the McCann's responsible whether Amaral had written his book or not
Most astute, Icabod, and a much more pertinent point than my question to Anne.
It is almost as if the witnesses for the prosecution are defending the other side...
-
A question for Anne:
In Portugal, good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people - according to Maria Isabel Stilwell.
No Judaeo-Christian tradition in Portugal, then, Anne? Thought the Iberian peninsula had been Christianised since Roman times...
This is one of Isabel Stilwell's tunes, SH ! I never observed this simplistic belief globally affected Portugal and I've been living in Lisbon for many years !
Everywhere on the planet people react to something bad moaning "what did I do (to God or whatever) to deserve this ?". Even educated people react like this spontaneously, it just means they're suddenly aware something is beyond them. this is why they complain.
I think we must try to understand this instead of despising it.
I was ashamed during that hearing. In order to exhibit her superiority, IS denigrated her own people, making a ridiculous caricature. She wasn't helped by Isabel Duarte though, it was as if no preparation work had been done. I felt the judge was exasperated though she controlled it very well. When IS turned towards the audience at the end, she looked lost and I had the same feeling than when Emma Loach left the room : they realised the vacuity of their statements.
There are many many New Christian families (names like Pereira, Carvalho, Ribeiro, Silva, Tavares, Paiva, Corrêa, Guedes..) and still Jewish communities.
-
From the reading of events I am surprised the judge didn't bounce her ass out the courtroom. She wouldn't have got away with interrupting a lawyer let alone a judge in a British court.
I remember an incident at my own trial when I asked the prosecutor why she was doing the case as a favour for the Inland Revenue. She erupted in fury and tried to shout me down..the Sheriff threaten to have both of us removed!
-
This is one of Isabel Stilwell's tunes, SH ! I never observed this simplistic belief globally affected Portugal and I've been living in Lisbon for many years !
Everywhere on the planet people react to something bad moaning "what did I do (to God or whatever) to deserve this ?". Even educated people react like this spontaneously, it just means they're suddenly aware something is beyond them. this is why they complain.
I think we must try to understand this instead of despising it.
I was ashamed during that hearing. In order to exhibit her superiority, IS denigrated her own people, making a ridiculous caricature. She wasn't helped by Isabel Duarte though, it was as if no preparation work had been done. I felt the judge was exasperated though she controlled it very well. When IS turned towards the audience at the end, she looked lost and I had the same feeling than when Emma Loach left the room : they realised the vacuity of their statements.
There are many many New Christian families (names like Pereira, Carvalho, Ribeiro, Silva, Tavares, Paiva, Corrêa, Guedes..) and still Jewish communities.
Thanks for all that invaluable info, Anne - straight from the courtroom itself. So strange the seeming lack of preparation for a case that the McCanns have been preparing for, informally if not formally, for a number of years.
On another point, I have found it interesting that a number of names associated with this case are so-called 'New Christian' - including Guedes itself, which I wondered about. Being 'Old Christian' myself (if you get my meaning, Anne...) I wondered if this reflects something about the case, or if there simply are so many New Christian families sill aware of their heritage in Portugal and keeping to these names..
-
From the reading of events I am surprised the judge didn't bounce her ass out the courtroom. She wouldn't have got away with interrupting a lawyer let alone a judge in a British court.
I remember an incident at my own trial when I asked the prosecutor why she was doing the case as a favour for the Inland Revenue. She erupted in fury and tried to shout me down..the Sheriff threaten to have both of us removed!
If IS wants to ruin things for the McCanns, that's her prerogative...
-
From the reading of events I am surprised the judge didn't bounce her ass out the courtroom. She wouldn't have got away with interrupting a lawyer let alone a judge in a British court.
I remember an incident at my own trial when I asked the prosecutor why she was doing the case as a favour for the Inland Revenue. She erupted in fury and tried to shout me down..the Sheriff threaten to have both of us removed!
She did appear to be pushing her luck a bit !
Why was she there anyway ... do we know ?
What direct association does she have with the McCanns or the case ?
-
Yet here is Ms Stilwell saying that the reason people believe that the McCanns are culpable is because they 'NEED' to believe that ...
This is how she justifies her editorials against Mr Amaral, she's convinced to achieve a balance between freedom of speech and right to good name. She doesn't realise or doesn't want to realise that most Portuguese aren't interested in this case and find having no idea easier and more comfortable.
-
This is how she justifies her editorials against Mr Amaral, she's convinced to achieve a balance between freedom of speech and right to good name. She doesn't realise or doesn't want to realise that most Portuguese aren't interested in this case and find having no idea easier and more comfortable.
Why is there little interest in this case in Portugal?
-
If IS wants to ruin things for the McCanns, that's her prerogative...
What ! She was a witness for the accusation, the other Isabel should have controlled her.
-
Why is there little interest in this case in Portugal?
Fatum explains it. Listen to some fados, you'll understand.
-
Fatum explains it. Listen to some fados, you'll understand.
Ok, back to the gramophone
-
On another point, I have found it interesting that a number of names associated with this case are so-called 'New Christian' - including Guedes itself, which I wondered about. Being 'Old Christian' myself (if you get my meaning, Anne...) I wondered if this reflects something about the case, or if there simply are so many New Christian families sill aware of their heritage in Portugal and keeping to these names..
Most Rodrigues, Nunes, Mendes, Gomes, Costa, etc. aren't aware they have Jewish families' names (you find them in the Dicionário Sefaradi de Sobrenomes). Only first names like Samuel, Salomão, Abraão, Ester, Rebeca indicate a possibly alive link with Judaism.
-
Ok, back to the gramophone
There are fados on line, in the horrible MP3 format.
-
Most Rodrigues, Nunes, Mendes, Gomes, Costa, etc. aren't aware they have Jewish families' names (you find them in the Dicionário Sefaradi de Sobrenomes). Only first names like Samuel, Salomão, Abraão, Ester, Rebeca indicate a possibly alive link with Judaism.
Very interesting.
What proportion of the Portuguese population would you say has Sefardi surnames?
-
This is how she justifies her editorials against Mr Amaral, she's convinced to achieve a balance between freedom of speech and right to good name. She doesn't realise or doesn't want to realise that most Portuguese aren't interested in this case and find having no idea easier and more comfortable.
I don't understand what you mean, Anne.
-
This is one of Isabel Stilwell's tunes, SH ! I never observed this simplistic belief globally affected Portugal and I've been living in Lisbon for many years !
Everywhere on the planet people react to something bad moaning "what did I do (to God or whatever) to deserve this ?". Even educated people react like this spontaneously, it just means they're suddenly aware something is beyond them. this is why they complain.
I think we must try to understand this instead of despising it.
I was ashamed during that hearing. In order to exhibit her superiority, IS denigrated her own people, making a ridiculous caricature. She wasn't helped by Isabel Duarte though, it was as if no preparation work had been done. I felt the judge was exasperated though she controlled it very well. When IS turned towards the audience at the end, she looked lost and I had the same feeling than when Emma Loach left the room : they realised the vacuity of their statements.
There are many many New Christian families (names like Pereira, Carvalho, Ribeiro, Silva, Tavares, Paiva, Corrêa, Guedes..) and still Jewish communities.
And now, you've totally lost me...
-
And now, you've totaly lost me...
You have to read back a few threads, Carana..
-
There are fados on line, in the horrible MP3 format.
Wonderful - such amazing music
-
IS. She says it is typical Portuguese provincialism to believe the opposite of what a Final Report says.
Wonder why?
-
Does anyone here know what this 'public controversial position' with Goncalo Amaral IS ?
Here is a translation of a Destak editorial (the bold parts are extraordinary but true !)
Call murderer whom I feel like to...
14 | 01 | 2010 08.40H
Isabel Stilwell | editorial@destak.pt
Maddeleine McCann's father reminded yesterday that this is not the couple who is on trial , but a book. In fact, the 7th Vara of Lisbon Civil Court will not decide whether the parents killed their daughter , hid or not her body , but whether a thesis that accuses someone of homicide can be published or rather, if I or the reader can write that Mr Y murdered Mr X without a court having reached that conclusion. The issue is the right to freedom of expression versus the right to honor and good name .
This Gerry McCann's exposition seems relevant to me, since reading some newspaper titles one got the idea that the couple would be presented to a judge in order to establish whether or not they were involved in the death of their daughter. «Parents conceal the death of Maddie", titled a journal , "Police confirm that Maddie is dead" wrote another, and this was more or less the content of some TV and radio reports.
Consciously or through silliness, some like to turn what exists into something they like. The McCanns were cleared of the charge of murdering their daughter. The investigation even failed to prove that Maddie died, but only they hadn't been able to find her. To add to this, the process was shelved by a Portuguese court. Now if the police officer (GA) or his team feel that justice has not been done they have the moral obligation to find evidence that will convince the court. Then, yes, they can have the case reopened and see convicted those they believe guilty .
Something completely different, and that nothing justifies, is that, when thwarted by justice, the come out of bookshops accusing whoever of a crime and nothing less than the homicide of their own daughter ! I'm afraid of a country where such things are possible.
-
she sounds a bit dim and ininformed much like plenty of our journalists here in the UK, either that or making things up, or probably plenty of both!
Zzzz
-
she sounds a bit dim and ininformed much like plenty of our journalists here in the UK, either that or making things up, or probably plenty of both!
Zzzz
If you look at the comments she gets on her pieces in the paper, her opinions are really not popular over there at all.
-
she sounds a bit dim and ininformed much like plenty of our journalists here in the UK, either that or making things up, or probably plenty of both!
Zzzz
Selfpromotion. You'll observe that she does exactly what she criticises: "some like to turn what exists into something they like." To achieve this, she has no state of soul (as we say in French) in speaking of killing and murder and tribunal !
-
Did anyone come up with any direct connection between Maria Isabel Stilwell and the McCanns ?
I mean they couldn't have called her as a witness purely on the basis of her being a Portuguese journalist/professional translater who happens to be hostile to Amaral ... could they ?
What was her relevance to the trial apart from that ?
-
If you look at the comments she gets on her pieces in the paper, her opinions are really not popular over there at all.
Thanks for that but never heard of her, so she cant be that important in the case
@)(++(*
-
Selfpromotion. You'll observe that she does exactly what she criticises: "some like to turn what exists into something they like." To achieve this, she has no state of soul (as we say in French) in speaking of killing and murder and tribunal !
A journalist performs in their career by their words....if their words are crap then they are crap journalists....
-
Did anyone come up with any direct connection between Maria Isabel Stilwell and the McCanns ?
I mean they couldn't have called her as a witness purely on the basis of her being a Portuguese journalist/professional translater who happens to be hostile to Amaral ... could they ?
What was her relevance to the trial apart from that ?
Course they could
@)(++(*