Sky Live Day 2 - 13/01/10

oliver wrote:oh no
MARY B
who said that? this latest witness brought in by Goncalo?????
oh no no no no

No they didn't say that, l think that's Marys opinion x

Tweets are coming thick and fast this morning

Could all this had been a set up from the Portuguese? I mean: let the court initially ban the book, giving Amaral the upportunity to line up all his witnesses in court.
Because if the court didn't respond to the request of the Mac's there wouldn't be a case now. With this the McC's, more confident in their case, and greedy as they are for the money went on sueing
If so, they're trapped bigtime.

As on the first day of the case, the McCanns are sitting on the front bench, listening impassively to the proceedings (web less than 10 seconds ago)

Was Amaral's fund set up for this hearing?

margaret wrote:

oliver wrote:oh no
MARY B
who said that? this latest witness brought in by Goncalo?????
oh no no no no

No they didn't say that, l think that's Marys opinion x

What I meant was the McCanns were saying that the book didn't say the same as the investigation. Sorry for confusion!!

Flores: No judge should be able to order people not to think about a case just because the police investigation has ceased,
less than 20 seconds ago from web

Harvesmom wrote:Flores: No judge should be able to order people not to think about a case just because the police investigation has ceased,
less than 20 seconds ago from web

The crux of the case methinks!!! I like this man!

# Flores: No-one should be allowed to steal our constitutional rights - rights that were very hard to win. That is what this trial is about. less than a minute ago from web


Flores: No judge should be able to order people not to think about a case just because the police investigation has ceased, 6 minutes ago from web



As on the first day of the case, the McCanns are sitting on the front bench, listening impassively to the proceedings. 8 minutes ago from web

Flores: No-one should be allowed to steal our constitutional rights - rights that were very hard to win. That is what this trial is about.
half a minute ago from web

Mr Flores is being cross-examined by a lawyer from a Portuguese television company that aired a documentary based on Mr Amaral's book. less than a minute ago from web

Flores: It is not true to say that the police only pursued the line of inquiry that the McCanns were guilty.

Flores: A detective has to think about what went through the head of the victim and the criminal. 1 minute ago from web




Flores: Many, many hours were spend by officers checking out every other possible line of inquiry. 2 minutes ago from web

Bebootje wrote:Could all this had been a set up from the Portuguese? I mean: let the court initially ban the book, giving Amaral the upportunity to line up all his witnesses in court.
Because if the court didn't respond to the request of the Mac's there wouldn't be a case now. With this the McC's, more confident in their case, and greedy as they are for the money went on sueing
If so, they're trapped bigtime.

it's a possibility.

Flores: The theory about passing the child through the window makes it seem as though someone is trying to fool the police.
less than 5 seconds ago from web

Flores: It would have been a very stupid person who tried to pass a sleeping child through the window of the McCanns' holiday flat.

Ouch.

double

The Famous Grouse wrote:

Flores: The theory about passing the child through the window makes it seem as though someone is trying to fool the police.
less than 5 seconds ago from web

Flores: It would have been a very stupid person who tried to pass a sleeping child through the window of the McCanns' holiday flat.

Ouch.

oh my they are getting hammered !!

The Famous Grouse wrote:

Flores: The theory about passing the child through the window makes it seem as though someone is trying to fool the police.
less than 5 seconds ago from web

Flores: It would have been a very stupid person who tried to pass a sleeping child through the window of the McCanns' holiday flat.

Ouch.

He's got a point though!

Re Bebootje's post re a set up by the Portugese. Whilst it remains a possibility, it is my understanding that the McCanns first request for an injuction was refused and they came back with another request which was granted. IMO its not a set up. There would need to be a lot of people involved, and in agreement.

The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte , is repeating the same question to Mr Flores. Yesterday, she became quite impassioned on their behalf.

The McCanns are both in conversation with their interpreters. Gerry however looks relaxed and smiles as he talks

I'm just wondering who the McCann's witnesses will be?

Does anybody know if any police officers are backing up their story?

tanszi wrote:Re Bebootje's post re a set up by the Portugese. Whilst it remains a possibility, it is my understanding that the McCanns first request for an injuction was refused and they came back with another request which was granted. IMO its not a set up. There would need to be a lot of people involved, and in agreement.

IMO Maddie was always their cashcow even before PDL!

Clarence probably. He acted like a police officer at one press conference. Is he in Lisbon?

god this is addictive im feeling kinda confident but i dont want to think he will lose either KWIM? its looking good so far though IMO

Flores: I worked in a different part of the police to Mr Amaral but I know him from the investigation and I respect him a lot. half a minute ago from web