Lisbon Libel Trial McCanns v Amaral

A quote from the Express Oct 10th:

If Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro rules in favour of Mrs McCann, she could give evidence at the end of next month. A family source said: "The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good.

"She is hopeful that the judge will grant her application to give evidence in the libel trial and she will definitely be prepared to go back for that."

Well it doesn't look as if she'll be able to help 'shut up her accuser for good' via the libel trial.
The accusers' witnesses have put on a dismal performance.
So in what other way will she help 'shut up for good' someone who won't stay silent?

This is the language of gangsters. Even taken in the article's context it stands out as quite menacing.
It serves only to make the reader wonder if anyone else has been 'shut up for good' in this evil saga ......

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/435689/Madeleine-McCann-police-have-new-suspect

 

almostgothic wrote:A quote from the Express Oct 10th:

[i]If Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro rules in favour of Mrs McCann, she could give evidence at the end of next month. A family source said: "The time will soon come when Kate can help shut up her accuser for good."

Like they already did with his dog?

[quote="almostgothic"] Pressures on the court...
10 October 2013 | Posted by Joana Morais

Over the last few days, we have watched yet another attempt at misinformation and intoxication of public opinion, which does not surprise anymore. The surprise, if it can be called that way, is the reaction of the Portuguese press which seems to be unable to see the main motivation of this campaign and turn that into the real news. The ongoing publicity campaign has the main purpose of putting pressure on the Portuguese court that has to decide. What is at stake is the independence of Portuguese courts to decide objectively, in a free manner and founded on the law. The Portuguese press in general has not yet understood, or didn't want to understand what is at stake, but the common citizen, who can think on his own and with good sense, is still alert and has already understood what is happening.

Gonçalo Amaral, October 10, 2013

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pressures-on-court.html[/quote



Thanks to "almostgothic" for posting this. I agree with Mr. Amaral, "What is at stake is the independence of Portuguese courts to decide objectively, in a free manner and founded on the law."

I would add 'not on the rubbish we read in the U.K. press'. Actually the said rubbish is being regurgitated throughout the world UNFORTUNATELY.

Thanks to Justice Forum and Anne Guedes. Trial day 7- Ricardo Paiva

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2591.0

Thank you frencheuropean!

This is the part that interested me.

Photocopies of the Expresso article which SO brought to Court are distributed to all lawyers with the assistance of the Clerk of the Court.

RA, Dra Duarte's substitute, opposes the request for the interview to be included in the process because it was already appended to in the injunction. He adds that it is not necessary to hear the journalists because the court does not seek to prove whether or not the plaintiff’s statements are accurately reproduced in the written text. He asks for the request to include the document to be rejected.

The Judge disagrees and declares that this document will be included within this trial's files because it constitutes a more legible version than the one which was joined to the providência cautelar (injunction) relating to the banning of the book. The Judge adds that the comments of the readers about the interview have to be included in the files because they illustrate the reactions of the public to the contents of the article.

And here is a link to the article.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/goncalo-amaral-e-uma-vergonha=f401101

It is, of course, in Portuguese but I chose that one rather than the mccannfiles version, because the reader comments are all there.  It's worth running it through even a Google translation.  And kudos to the Expresso for permitting those comments to remain on the site, because they certainly don't pull any punches.  McCann neglect, British Government interference, Brian Kennedy, Clarence Mitchell, all the awkward questions are there in glorious Technicolor and this is as far back as 2008.  It shows precisely what Portuguese opinion was (and probably still is) and what British opinion probably would be too, if our gonad-free MSM didn't persist in filling people's heads with rubbish and fairy tales.

ETA the reason I think this is so important is that all these awkward and nasty questions are now a part of official Court records and so cannot be swept under the carpet. They will be there for ever, for everyone to see, as part of official court documents and public record. This has the potential to be huge.

Iris wrote:This is the part that interested me.

Photocopies of the Expresso article which SO brought to Court are distributed to all lawyers with the assistance of the Clerk of the Court.

RA, Dra Duarte's substitute, opposes the request for the interview to be included in the process because it was already appended to in the injunction. He adds that it is not necessary to hear the journalists because the court does not seek to prove whether or not the plaintiff’s statements are accurately reproduced in the written text. He asks for the request to include the document to be rejected.

The Judge disagrees and declares that this document will be included within this trial's files because it constitutes a more legible version than the one which was joined to the providência cautelar (injunction) relating to the banning of the book. The Judge adds that the comments of the readers about the interview have to be included in the files because they illustrate the reactions of the public to the contents of the article.

And here is a link to the article.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/goncalo-amaral-e-uma-vergonha=f401101

It is, of course, in Portuguese but I chose that one rather than the mccannfiles version, because the reader comments are all there.  It's worth running it through even a Google translation.  And kudos to the Expresso for permitting those comments to remain on the site, because they certainly don't pull any punches.  McCann neglect, British Government interference, Brian Kennedy, Clarence Mitchell, all the awkward questions are there in glorious Technicolor and this is as far back as 2008.  It shows precisely what Portuguese opinion was (and probably still is) and what British opinion probably would be too, if our gonad-free MSM didn't persist in filling people's heads with rubbish and fairy tales.

ETA the reason I think this is so important is that all these awkward and nasty questions are now a part of official Court records and so cannot be swept under the carpet.  They will be there for ever, for everyone to see, as part of official court documents and public record.  This has the potential to be huge.

Thanks Iris. Good comments on the article and particularly a lengthy one that mentions how people of PDL searched and her parents didn't.

frencheuropean wrote:Thanks to Justice Forum and Anne Guedes. Trial day 7- Ricardo Paiva

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2591.0

The Judge seems very interested in the Expresso interview.

Translation can be found here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html

There seem to be contradictions between the paper version and the video stuff in their response to why they left Portugal. On the one hand they say the PJ were aware of their plans to leave which is why they were interviewed as arguidos before they left, but then Gerry also states that they asked the PJ for permission to return to the UK and it was granted (with 'no bail conditions'... don't think that was true was it? I thought they weren't allowed to leave the UK for longer than 2 weeks, for example... isn't that a bail condition? AND if 'arguido' means 'person of interest' or whatever benign interpretation Gerry wants to give it, why would there be BAIL conditions?). Anyway, these contradictions have no relevance to the libel case, but stood out for me as I was reading and watching the snippets of footage from the interview. They always want to make out they are the ones in control and that everything that happens to them is entirely expected. The police interviewed them as arguidos because they had told them of their plans to leave.... they actively wanted to be interviewed as arguidos - in fact they welcomed it, because it meant the police were being thorough... but they'd have preferred if this had happened at the outset.... blah blah blah.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html

The Expresso interview, 06 September 2008
 
The Expresso interview Expresso (no online link, appears in paper edition only)

Article by: Raquel Moleiro and Rui Gustavo

06 September 2008

Thanks to 'astro' for translation

Maddie case: In their first interview since they quit being suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann spoke about the re-launch of the investigation, the fear that they felt in Portugal and the unshakable certainty that Madeleine was abducted

"Nothing in the process says that Madeleine has died"

Q – What are you presently doing to find Madeleine?

Gerry – We have had private investigators working with us for several months. Now that the case has been archived, it's easier because we accessed the process. We carried out new interviews with those that had already testified. And we interviewed others who approached us and had never spoken before.

Kate – As we didn't know what the PJ had done, we repeated everything that seemed important to us.

Q – Do the new witnesses offer clues about the disappearance?

Gerry – Some report sightings, but it's not likely that they lead to our daughter. We are more interested in people that offer credible information that can be verified through photographs or in another form; people who know who may be involved.

Q – What impression did you get from the process? Were you shocked over its contents?

Gerry – We were investigated into the smallest detail. There are entire volumes about us. We can jump those. It must be disquieting information that will not help us to find Madeleine.

Q – Don't you think that everything that was possible to do, was done? The investigation reached Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Morocco…

Gerry – Morocco is a good example of what went wrong. A sighting was reported and it was said that there were cameras at the petrol station. When the inspectors went there, they concluded that there were none. The truth is that there were none in the pump area, but in the shop. And when the PJ returned, the tape had been recorded over.

Kate – It's difficult to describe how it feels to have our daughter taken away… We want to see action everywhere. We wanted spotlights, we wanted helicopters, we wanted everyone on the street, searching.

Q – If Madeleine had disappeared in England, would things have been different?

Gerry – If it had happened in a British city, I have no doubts. But I don't know if it would have been different if we had been in a small village in Scotland. Clearly, the English police are more experienced in abductions, they are more alert.

Q – If you have an important clue concerning Madeleine's whereabouts, will you transmit it to the Portuguese police?

Gerry – If something needs to be done in Portugal, we'll have to. We cannot go around breaking doors down or arresting people. But only when we feel that we cannot advance any further on our own.

Q – Do you trust the Portuguese authorities, after having been considered suspects?

Gerry – We wouldn't mind if we had been investigated at the beginning, if they thought that could help. But months later, when the evidence had been lost? It's that once the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence again.

Q – Didn't you find it strange that the dogs found traces of blood in your room and in your rental car…

Gerry – There was no blood found! The indicia are worthless if they are not corroborated by forensic information. And they were not.

Q – 40 apartments were investigated and the dogs only marked yours. Ten cars and they only reacted to yours.

Gerry – These dogs' frailty was proved by a study that was carried out in the USA, in the case of a man that had been accused of murder. They had ten rooms, and in each room four boxes were placed, containing vegetables, bones, trash. Some contained human remains. They stayed there for ten hours. Eight hours after the boxes were removed, the dogs came in. And the dogs failed two thirds of the attempts. Imagine the reliability when these dogs test an apartment three months after the disappearance of a child.

Q – Were you surprised when you were made arguidos?

Kate – It was not surprising after weeks with the media saying that we were suspects. And there we have to ask why the information that reached the media was disfigured. Why do the newspapers say that blood was found in the apartment when the police report does not confirm it? Why was it said that the DNA that was found in the car was a 100% match with Madeleine's?

Gerry – In a way, we would like to have been accused so we could defend ourselves openly. Now, reading the process, there is no evidence that justifies the suspicion, apart from the dogs' action. There was never a sustained explanation. And the questioning: 'What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you? Where did you put her?' All fantasy! If they had found DNA – so what? And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?

Q – Do you investigate information that point towards Madeleine's death?

Kate – We want to find her alive, but if she is dead we want to know.

Q – Do you still believe that she's alive?

Kate – There are great possibilities that she is alive, aren't there? There is nothing in the process to indicate that something bad has happened to her…

Q – But there are no indicia that she has been abducted, either.

Gerry – We firmly believe that she was abducted by a man, minutes after I went to see her in the bedroom. There are two independent witnesses that saw a child of around four years of age being carried that evening. Our friend Jane Tanner and also the Smith family.

Q – The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn’t seen him as well…

Gerry – I didn't see her because my back was turned to the location where she passed. I was talking to a friend. And there is also the couple with children that saw a man carrying a child with pyjamas that were similar to Madeleine's, blond hair, the same age.

Q – Later on, that family stated that the man they saw was Gerry…

Gerry – At that time I was at the restaurant. The fact that we became suspects has probably influenced the Smiths' testimony.

Q – Was it a coincidence that you were made arguidos on one day and returned home the next day?

Gerry – They questioned us on that day because the PJ knew about our return.

Q – Were you afraid of being arrested?

Kate – Obviously. At a certain point we didn't know very well what could happen.

Gerry – From the information in the newspapers, of course we were afraid. It was scary.

Q – Being in England, you would not be extradited anymore.

Gerry – We asked the inspector that was in charge of the case if he had any objection: the answer was no. It's obvious that we were afraid that people might think we were escaping, but it was better not to be in Portugal at that point in time.

Q – Why?

Kate – Because of the hostile environment. We couldn't even leave the house.

Q – Why did Kate refuse to answer questions during your interrogation, that Gerry accepted to clarify the next day?

Kate – I was advised by my Portuguese lawyer not to reply.

Gerry – I received the same advice but decided to disobey. My plan was to remain silent, but the first question was: 'Are you involved in your daughter's disappearance?' It was nonsense and I decided to answer. From there onwards, I replied to all of them.

Q – Why didn't you authorise the police to see the messages that you sent and received on your mobile phone on the eve of Maddie’s disappearance.

Gerry – Nobody asked to see my messages. On the day before and on the day of the disappearance I did not receive or send 16 messages. I could hardly write a text message. I received three or four phone calls and two were from work. After the disappearance I received hundreds. And when the police asked me for the registry, I told them to ask the service provider. My phone only registers the last ten.

Q – The chief inspector in the case, Tavares de Almeida, writes a report where he says that your friends lied to save you, that Maddie died in the living room, and that you hid the body.

Gerry – What can we say? You will have to ask the police chiefs why they wrote that, why they saw us as suspects.

Q – The majority of crimes where the victims are children are committed by the parents.

Gerry – Not in the case of abducted children. And this is a case of an abducted child. It's an exceptional case.

Q – When he archived the case, the prosecutor said that the investigation can be reopened if a new clue appears. Do you think that is possible?

Kate – Of course! It could happen at any moment. All that it takes is for one person to make the phone call that we wait for so much. We know that she was abducted in Portugal and we vehemently believe that someone knows or suspects something.

*


"Mr Amaral's behaviour is a disgrace"

They have not read the book that is a best-seller in Portugal. And they don't spare the author and former PJ inspector

Q – Former inspector Gonçalo Amaral remains convinced of your involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Did you read 'The Truth of the Lie', the book that he wrote?

Kate and Gerry – No.

Kate – Why would I?

Gerry – I won't learn anything from reading it.

Q – It was a success in Portugal.

Gerry – Was it? How many copies did it sell?

Q – Approximately 200 thousand. Next week, it is released in Spain.

Gerry – That is what can be called illicit enrichment.

Q – Your English lawyers already have a translated copy and they are analysing it. Do you intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral?

Gerry – At this moment we are focused on what we can do to find Madeleine and not in suing anyone.

Kate – All that I am going to say about this – because I'm not going to waste any time on Mr Amaral – is that as a professional and as a person his behaviour has been a disgrace.

Q – Aren't you curious to know what the book says?

Kate – What for? It must be nothing but a load of rubbish. It is so secondary… It certainly won't help to find our daughter. My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that.

Q – But you do know the theory that Gonçalo Amaral defends: Madeleine accidentally died in the Ocean Club apartment and you concealed the body.

Gerry – It really is a waste of time. And we need all the time that we can get to analyse the investigation's documents, which contain a lot of information that we didn't know about.

Kate – You just have to cross, loosely, his theory with the process in order to understand that the facts that he reports are not correct.

Q – There is a theory that defends that the coordinator was removed from the investigation due to British political pressure.

Gerry – Who dismissed him?

Q – The PJ's national director.

Gerry – Then you have to ask him if he was pressured. Or if Gordon Brown discussed the case with him. He surely didn't.

Q – He also resigned. And largely due to this process.

Gerry – That was not what I was told. Apparently he had a vision of the police itself that was different from the one held by the Justice Minister.

Q – In a final analysis, they both left the PJ because the investigation failed.

Gerry – That's not our fault. I do not criticize the authorities over not trying to find Madeleine. It doesn't matter anymore. Now all that matters is that we do everything to try to find her, through our own methods.

Q – Did you ever get to know Gonçalo Amaral?

Kate – The question is the other way around: did he get to know us?

*

There are photographs of her all over the house

Gerry has returned to his work as a cardiologist. Kate did not exercise medicine again. Twins Sean and Amelie fill up her days as a mother.

Q – How has your life changed with the disappearance of Madeleine?

Gerry – Independently of what happens, it will never be the same again. If you talk to the parents of other abducted children, they also mention this parallel life which we entered. Sean and Amelie, being so young, force us to introduce a certain normality in our lives, to make it normal for them. And it's them who, for moments, make it normal for us. But it will never be normal for us. They are aged three and a half, and they are very, very happy.

Q – Did you explain to the twins what happened to their sister?

Kate – They perceive Madeleine's absence perfectly. I have no doubt whatsoever. But they don't know the details. They know that she disappeared and that we're looking for her.

Gerry – We were advised concerning what we should tell them, how and when. Larger explanations are kept for later. We realise that they miss their older sister. They know that her not being with us is not a good thing, and they hope that she returns.

Q – How do you keep Madeleine present in your lives?

Kate – There are photographs of her all over the house. And we speak about her with the twins every day – it's an important part of their lives. Sean and Amelie talk about her and still include her in their playing… If they receive sweets, they say "Let's keep one for Madeleine". Or "When she comes home I'll give her this or that". It's endearing and it makes our days less difficult.

Q – Did you fear that you might lose custody over Sean and Amelie because your behaviour was considered to be negligent?

Gerry – We were not negligent, we did what any reasonable parent would do. But we deeply regret what happened, because in our action, someone saw an opportunity to take Madeleine. I'm an optimistic person. I never thought that something like this could happen.

Q – Did you change the manner in which you deal with Sean and Amelie?

Gerry – We are more protective and less trusting. We never left our children alone again and many families will never do so again because of us.

Kate – Now we think about everything that can happen, about predators, abductors. We don't even let go of them in the shopping centre.

*

€1.200.000

The McCanns say that the fund has spent €1.2 million with the private investigation. But the reward of €3 million still stands

Q – How much have you spent on the private investigation so far?

Gerry – Approximately one million pounds, over the past ten months, paid with money from the Find Madeleine fund. A substantial sum was also spent on our defence, but two benefactors have covered that expense, which means that the fund was solely used in the search for our daughter.

Q – Do you maintain the offer of 2.5 million ponds to whoever finds Madeleine?

Gerry – We do not control that reward, but everything leads me to believe that it still stands. And that there will also be money available for whoever supplies credible information.

Kate – It's a lot of money, but we cannot set limits, a child is priceless. We'll pay whatever is necessary.

Q – Is there still money left in the fund?

Gerry – There is still some money left. Recently, British newspapers ('Express newspapers') paid us compensation of 550 thousand pounds, which fed the fund. That had an important impact. And there are still donations, people who send money directly.

Q – But less than in the beginning, before you were made arguidos.

Gerry – Of course! Those who were in doubt stopped contributing. Many write to us asking for forgiveness because they believed in our guilt. We know that we have to make an effort for people to know that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that we were not involved in the disappearance.

*

Other issues

Dogs – "We read everything that we found about these dogs that detect cadavers. It was due to them that we became suspects"

Clues – "The sightings continue. Since May we received one thousand phone calls and an equal number of emails, some containing relevant data"

Media exposure – "Appearing in the media was never good. We did it to publicise Madeleine's face and to find her. We failed"

Background

Details of two hours of conversation

Kate and Gerry are different. More relaxed, or conformed. It is difficult to tell. "The twins force us to a certain normality", the mother explains. It's been 16 months and the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains unsolved.

The parents have already been victims of a tragedy and suspects of a terrible crime. The process was archived, but they are judged every day. Gerry agrees: "From the moment when the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence".

This is the first interview since the process was archived, on the 21st of July. It is scheduled in Rothley, a small village in the British Midlands where nobody suspects the McCanns' guilt. Even less the owner of the Court House Hotel, which is installed in a medieval building and where the interview is held, in the late afternoon last Monday. There is tea with milk and biscuits. There is no guide and there are no forbidden questions.

In almost two hours of interview, Kate and Gerry, both 40, clearly state the intention that supports their availability for the conversation. "We believe that in Portugal someone knows about Madeleine, that it is where the solution for our daughter's disappearance lies". And they want that person, whether singular or collective, to know that they search for him, that they ensure his anonymity and that they will even give him 2.5 million pounds if he tells them where Madeleine is.

Every day, in their very British house of little bricks, they study a little more of the process of the Polícia Judiciária's investigation, which they personally consult as it is being translated. They understand "nothing" of Portuguese. From a first reading they reinforced their hope of finding Maddie alive. Nothing tells them that she is dead. The volumes about themselves, from the time when they were made arguidos, have been put aside. "We do not intend to read them".

They remind them of the days when they were afraid of being arrested in Portugal, accused of Madeleine's death.

The Expresso interview

Q – The majority of crimes where the victims are children are committed by the parents.

Gerry – Not in the case of abducted children. And this is a case of an abducted child. It's an exceptional case.



Really Gerry?  I think you'll find the majority of children who are abducted are taken by a family member (custody battle etc).

A missing body, however ... (Gerry's words) ... well, that's an exceptional case alright.

As for Kate's comment about not even letting go of the twins in the shopping centre... who WOULD? I can't believe the stupidity of that remark. Surely everyone knows to keep hold of their children in a busy, public place... not because there are paedophiles lurking around every corner, but because once the little sods have got away, it's really upsetting for them to be lost and a complete nightmare for the parent/s before they're reunited, even if it's only seconds later.

From Justice Forum : Day 7- witness 2- Tavares de Almeida:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2598.0

With thanks to Justice Forum ( Anne Guedes and John):

Day 7 witness 3- Luis Neves:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2600.0


Day 7 witness 4 Manuel Catarino:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2601.0

Dr Ricardo Afonso's questioning leaves quite a bit to be desired. I imagine Gerry has already been on the horn to Duarte asking why exactly she didn't show up!

Gerry – We firmly believe that she was abducted by a man, minutes after I went to see her in the bedroom. There are two independent witnesses that saw a child of around four years of age being carried that evening. Our friend Jane Tanner and also the Smith family.

Q – The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn’t seen him as well…

Gerry – I didn't see her because my back was turned to the location where she passed. I was talking to a friend. And there is also the couple with children that saw a man carrying a child with pyjamas that were similar to Madeleine's, blond hair, the same age.

Q – Later on, that family stated that the man they saw was Gerry…

Gerry – At that time I was at the restaurant.

-----------------------

Actually the police were correct to question Tanner's testimony and have now opened up the entire time from 9 to 10 pm which means they question the existence of/competence of the checks (as who would not, the entire group of children could have been missing /dead and a listening check would not reveal that) - the switch from listening to entering the apt and seeing all the kids - then changed to entering the apt and seeing only the twins - by Oldfield, has to be a red flag.

The door opened differently each time - half way, vs a few degrees - window open, shut, shades down - all of those changes of recollection seem more about making their checks appear real, and validating the firm belief that Jane saw the abduction - than of accurately describing the contents of the room or how the checks were conducted.

Gerry didn't see HER and nor did Jez - facing each other, as you would in a conversation, one of you would have seen Jane. Gerry answers a different question than the one that was asked - one that allows Jane to have been there, seeing the man carrying the child, and seeing Gerry, but Gerry not seeing her nor the man, thus giving credence to the abduction and an alibi to himself for the time of abduction while leaving him room to throw Jane under the bus if necessary.

If that child wasn't Maddie, then he has no alibi for the time of abduction which was a big deal at the time. The dogs need to be discredited but it was their own dodgy answers and behaviors that made them suspects; the dogs just cemented it.

Gerry – Approximately one million pounds, over the past ten months, paid with money from the Find Madeleine fund. A substantial sum was also spent on our defence, but two benefactors have covered that expense, which means that the fund was solely used in the search for our daughter.

Q – Do you maintain the offer of 2.5 million ponds to whoever finds Madeleine?

Gerry – We do not control that reward, but everything leads me to believe that it still stands. And that there will also be money available for whoever supplies credible information.

Kate – It's a lot of money, but we cannot set limits, a child is priceless. We'll pay whatever is necessary.

Q – Is there still money left in the fund?

Gerry – There is still some money left. Recently, British newspapers ('Express newspapers') paid us compensation of 550 thousand pounds, which fed the fund. That had an important impact. And there are still donations, people who send money directly.

Q – But less than in the beginning, before you were made arguidos.

Gerry – Of course! Those who were in doubt stopped contributing. Many write to us asking for forgiveness because they believed in our guilt. We know that we have to make an effort for people to know that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that we were not involved in the disappearance.

*
-------------

Their argument now is that they had to use the Fund for their defense rather than the search and that is why they have grounds for libel damages - but if their "benefactors" paid for the legal defense then this statement is not true; no Fund money, according to Gerry, was used for their defense.

He also sidesteps the question of the reward since clearly they don't intend to pay out on that, it's someone else's money. Kate's remark about using "whatever is needed" to reward people for information appears to be of other people's money - rather than the Fighting Fund.

He insisted the Tapas Nine - the McCanns and the friends dining with them at a tapas bar near their apartment the night Madeleine disappeared - should have had their phones tapped because of 'inconsistencies' in their statements.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449861/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-wants-defend-court-smears.html#ixzz2iTb92NW6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I wish they'd say more about what the inconsistent statements were.

with thanks to Anne Guedes and Justice Forum:



McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Moita Flores.


Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 5


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0

frencheuropean wrote:with thanks to Anne Guedes and Justice Forum:



McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Moita Flores.


Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 5


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0

Thanks frencheuropean, Flores really rubs it in about the Police not looking to the Parents enough and how it was impossible for the window to be opened.

Bumping thread

Today in Lisbon 05 November 2013, witnesses Paulo Sargento, Valentim de Carvalho, Luis Varela Marreiros, Mario Lopes, Tania Raposo, Antonio Paulo dos Santos.

IOnly witnesses for Valentim de Carvalho today and Paulo Sargento will testify on 27 November. He asked to be excused because he just got married. Nothing exciting at all today.

Also, that slimeball Rogério Alves showed up to just make a statement for the journalists there.

thanks Colonel Fabian can get about my day now.

Colonel Fabien wrote:IOnly witnesses for Valentim de Carvalho today and Paulo Sargento will testify on 27 November. He asked to be excused because he just got married. Nothing exciting at all today.

Also, that slimeball Rogério Alves showed up to just make a statement for the journalists there.

Thank you. .  

That Alves certainly seems to like the sound of his own voice.

I assume Ms Duarte turned up so ?

It was today that the judge was going to say if Mr Amaral and the McCanns could take the witness stand.

Did that not happen?

maybe his friends aren't as fussy as Isobel Duartes are.

This is driving me mad. Why is nothing being reported. A trial is going on. Some days are reported in all the headlines and other days are ignored. I'd like to know why.