Is the libel prelim case being heard in Lisbon today?

We may not get to know anything about the McCann v Amaral libel prelim case but it would be interesting to know if it has taken place.

Good luck to GA and I'd go for at least £10M and then go forward and deal with the UK newspapers.

Second on his list should be...parsons.

Well, I think Dr Amaral would love to get the McCanns into a court of law and onto the witness stand. So, I hope they do end up there, having to answer questions under oath.

Good luck Dr Amaral. God be with you.

What's the betting when mr amaral wins the newspapers will have a field day.....

Seen the UPDATE on the findmadeleine website lol......click on the link.

kitti wrote:Seen the UPDATE on the findmadeleine website lol......click on the link.

I noticed the book is coming out next month in Hungary and Spain. What else did you mean, kitti?

kitti wrote:Seen the UPDATE on the findmadeleine website lol......click on the link.

I wonder why Kate decided to omit France. Maybe bare faced lies do not translate into french very well.

Good luck to Dr Amaral!

whatsupdoc wrote:

kitti wrote:Seen the UPDATE on the findmadeleine website lol......click on the link.

I noticed the book is coming out next month in Hungary and Spain. What else did you mean, kitti?

Usually, when they do an update it's about something like Cameron or whatever, if you click now on the right hand side on update ....it just takes you to where the book can be sold and where it has been sold.



What does that say for you....greedy b. ..ds....

Tapas 7: Why we feared the police would frame us
Exclusive Friends felt invite would be a trap to nail the McCanns
The Sunday Mirror
10 August 2008
Lori Campbell

Kate gets DIY policing guide to help investigation 
Cop liaison 'irritated' by Gerry emails on case leads

Secrets of the Madeleine dossier

KATE and Gerry McCann's "Tapas 7" friends refused to return to Portugal because they feared they were pawns in an elaborate plot to frame the couple.

And the group of friends believed they too could be made suspects if they returned to the country.

As police files into Madeleine's disappearance are opened, we can also reveal how:

Kate McCann was given a Do-It-Yourself guide to policing by UK cops after Portuguese police failed to find any clues themselves.

Local cops accused the McCanns of shedding crocodile tears just hours after their daughter was snatched.

The Portuguese police officer assigned to them as a family liaison officer criticised them for "reacting negatively to the work of this police force" and became irritated by Gerry's frequent emails.

The 30,000-page dossier reveals how the Tapas 7 decided not to go back to Portugal for a "reconstruction" in May this year because Portuguese police would not give them reassurances they would not be arrested.

The group were baffled as to why police were calling them back for the re-enactment a full year after Madeleine went missing, and demanded to be told how it would help the inquiry.

In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.

An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.

"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."

The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.

She desperately bombarded Portuguese police with suggestions on how to further their investigation. The GP even had to tell detectives to take blood samples from the twins in case they had been drugged by Madeleine's kidnapper - something Portuguese police had not thought to do. But they dismissed her ideas as "bizarre".

In his own statement, Inspector Ricardo Paiva, the Portuguese family liaison officer assigned to Kate and Gerry, said: "I noted certain strange behaviour on the part of the couple who were gradually reacting negatively to the work of this police force.

"I was repeatedly told by Kate - three months after Madeleine's disappearance - that the police should do blood analysis on the twins." Insp Paiva also said he became irritated by Gerry who would email him every lead the family received in the hunt for Madeleine.

He said: "Mostly they contained information of little credibility."

Inspector Jose Roque also accused frantic Kate and Gerry of faking tears in the first few hours of the hunt.

He said: "After the search I noticed an unusual situation. The parents were kneeling in their bedroom and they were crying. However, I did not see any tears despite the fact they were making sounds identical to crying."

 

I put that up above because it was worth another read and reding it again made me laugh...



AGGRESSIVE INTERIEWING by the LEICESTER POLICE



SCARED OFF BEING FRAMED BY THE PJ.


How the hell did they get away with saying this.

I thought it was LP who interviewed them in the UK?


I thought the PJ were in the other room, watching.

kitti wrote:I thought it was LP who interviewed them in the UK?


I thought the PJ were in the other room, watching.

That's correct Kitti.

Thanks for posting that, interesting to read it again.

Why should any of the Tapas Crew have been worried that a reconstruction may have been a trap to nail the McCanns? Surely if their statements were all truthful, and the checks had been done as described, Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child and everyone was where they said they had been, a reconstruction would have been their top priority to clear their friends, the McCanns?

kitti wrote:
In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.

She desperately bombarded Portuguese police with suggestions on how to further their investigation. The GP even had to tell detectives to take blood samples from the twins in case they had been drugged by Madeleine's kidnapper - something Portuguese police had not thought to do. But they dismissed her ideas as "bizarre".

Did you really write that Rachael? SHAME ON YOU, wonder how vunerable your kids felt when you left them alone every night!

As for the bit about Kate telling the PJ to test the twins for drugs SHE cancelled the appointment after being ordered to by Gerry!

kitti wrote:Tapas 7: Why we feared the police would frame us
Exclusive Friends felt invite would be a trap to nail the McCanns
The Sunday Mirror
10 August 2008
Lori Campbell

Kate gets DIY policing guide to help investigation 
Cop liaison 'irritated' by Gerry emails on case leads

Secrets of the Madeleine dossier

KATE and Gerry McCann's "Tapas 7" friends refused to return to Portugal because they feared they were pawns in an elaborate plot to frame the couple.

And the group of friends believed they too could be made suspects if they returned to the country.

As police files into Madeleine's disappearance are opened, we can also reveal how:

Kate McCann was given a Do-It-Yourself guide to policing by UK cops after Portuguese police failed to find any clues themselves.

Local cops accused the McCanns of shedding crocodile tears just hours after their daughter was snatched.

The Portuguese police officer assigned to them as a family liaison officer criticised them for "reacting negatively to the work of this police force" and became irritated by Gerry's frequent emails.

The 30,000-page dossier reveals how the Tapas 7 decided not to go back to Portugal for a "reconstruction" in May this year because Portuguese police would not give them reassurances they would not be arrested.

The group were baffled as to why police were calling them back for the re-enactment a full year after Madeleine went missing, and demanded to be told how it would help the inquiry.

In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.

An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.

"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."

The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.

She desperately bombarded Portuguese police with suggestions on how to further their investigation. The GP even had to tell detectives to take blood samples from the twins in case they had been drugged by Madeleine's kidnapper - something Portuguese police had not thought to do. But they dismissed her ideas as "bizarre".

In his own statement, Inspector Ricardo Paiva, the Portuguese family liaison officer assigned to Kate and Gerry, said: "I noted certain strange behaviour on the part of the couple who were gradually reacting negatively to the work of this police force.

"I was repeatedly told by Kate - three months after Madeleine's disappearance - that the police should do blood analysis on the twins." Insp Paiva also said he became irritated by Gerry who would email him every lead the family received in the hunt for Madeleine.

He said: "Mostly they contained information of little credibility."

Inspector Jose Roque also accused frantic Kate and Gerry of faking tears in the first few hours of the hunt.

He said: "After the search I noticed an unusual situation. The parents were kneeling in their bedroom and they were crying. However, I did not see any tears despite the fact they were making sounds identical to crying."

The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.

An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.

"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."

The Portuguese set the questions for LP to ask, was my understanding of the interviewing.

I think also that in addition to focusing on Kate and Gerry's culpability, the questions tried to focus on the tapas friends culpability as well to some degree.

I am sure Mr Rebelo did not appreciate their revulsion. I am certain he did appreciate their fear, their panic and their hesitation in answering questions and would have drawn his own conclusions. I am certain Mr Rebelo would not need to be told how to react to their questions, he would know. It is probably Mr Rebelo who felt revulsion.

Many do not believe the questioning was strong enough, but the tapas friends were clearly rattled by it. To my mind it was subtle questioning, following tried and tested interview techniques. There was no fist banging, no trying to put words into mouths. It seemed to be that LP listened to them more than asked questions, and listening can be very enlightening sometimes. Just observing their mannerisms, just analysing their choice of words, very enlightening indeed.

Goodness knows then how they would react under formal questioning. They would probably pass out.

There isn't anything on t.v. here in Portugal, that I have seen about the libel trial. I have heard it is the last week of October, but no idea if that is true.

How different is this
In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

from this

We won't return in case the reconstruction /consequent questioning gets us in trouble.

Not very?

The difference is that they presuppose the answers WILL get them in trouble and the reason is this "plot" by the PJ to fit up McCanns. Another supposition is that they'll be caught out in their lies while they are there in PT and able to be arrested.

Will they "understand" the reason for further questioning and a reconstruction if requested by SY?

Who presumably are NOT part of an elaborate plot?

If they refuse a second time they can only do so for the same reason - you're all out to frame us / Gerry and Kate - or because they know the reconstruction is going to result in things like Gerry, Jane and Jez being three feet from each other and not know it, and the timelines they offer impossible for the person playing the abductor, to get in, sedate the children, get out, under Gerry's nose, and have Matt fail to notice a window wide open - but yet see clearly, in the jet black, what Kate couldn't see in the same circumstances in the exact same doorway vantage point so she had to turn the light on-- what is inside cots, 6 feet away that have opaque ends and in which he can see at 930 both twins' chests rising - with their mother, 30 minutes later seeing them both on their bellies - as if they rotated simultaneously like synchronized swimmers as another poster has noted.


Pretty much the same as not taking a LDT in case you flunk it. Or refusing to answer lest you incriminate yourself. It's aparently allowable, to refuse to cooperate, but it's pointing in the same direction as Eddie's nose.

How would this get THEm and THEIR families in trouble - should protecting G&K from SY be the priority here or finding out what happened that night?

I smell large legal fees.

If T9 returning to PDL a few months after the PJ had a chance to review and scrutinze their statements was dodgy, in case it implicated them, how much more dodgy for them will it be to do so years later, after 20,000 pages of report are turned in and SY has a chance to review and scrutinize those, including their own statements? They are in more trouble now than they were in 2007!

Will SY take it as written in the McPress, that McCanns are "cleared" and there's no point asking them or their friends about May 3rd - who was the last to see her, how does this timeline play out as it was written?

If SY sees Mrs Fenn's statement about 75 minutes of abandonment and increasingly distressed crying, May 1st -- which they will - and Kate's attack on Mrs Fenn's character - done in the book, post mortem, very classy - in order to demolish her as a person of good standing - will they wonder why McCanns were doing pre-emptive attacks on witnesses credibility?

What about the detectives hired by McCanns & highly praised in Kate's book - ALL of them including Haligen making strides and doing good work to progress the investigation by chasing up foolish "leads" which Clarence all claimed were significant - and not really checking into them, as with the Posh Yacht sighting? Will they wonder why those i's were not dotted and t's crossed? Why the McCann's private detectives simply moved on as if Clarence's statement in the press was the whole desired outcome? They got what they wanted - a story about abduction and suspects - but did NOT even interview witnesses in the very restaurant where this supposedly occurred?
'
What about the Leh India "sighting" and the story that Clarence was in contact with the police to review the "photos"? Or Angolan bouncer story, that was also significant and commented on by Clarence, was it completely fake and not followed up, if so (I imagine so) will SY wonder if this was part of a top down wider agenda strategy by Team mcCann, to highlight fake leads, or find it acceptable?

Bottom line: even if Cameron asked/directed SY to do this review in McCanns' favor, to clear them and hence shut them up from complaining about the government, with the help of the bootlicking press, do they (SY) have more to fear from McCanns and the harm they can -and would - do to SY if they are not cleared conclusively - or from the backlash if they don't take on the tough issues and simply clear these people without getting to the bottom of the discrepencies, rechecking alibis, reinterviewing key witnesses like T9 and going thru those activities?

Can they count on everyone in this investigation keeping mum and keeping to the party line to clear McCanns, and just go thru the motions - what if one of their guys breaks ranks and says "we didn't really look at McCanns, this was a top down directive?" What if the PJ break the story? I think they have to look, and check, and wonder. To act like the press and take an editorial direction and not do their job is just too risky. They are already under scrutiny for being corrupt. This would just put another nail in the coffin?

Supposing Cameron did NOT give SY a directive to "clear" them but simply to do the job they know best how to do. They can't really clear suspects in a PT case but can say they find no evidence that they had anything to do with it and say it was an abduction.

The government is under scrutiny by the press and the people, as is SY.

Cameron has something to lose if SY finds the same way the PJ did. The press didn't like that finding once they knew they could be sued for reporting it- and the people set up a howl, with at least some of those petition signers being in their favor, you could argue the majority of British people want their beliefs confirmed that these people are innocent and did nothing outside the bounds of reasonable parenting and should be cleared and it's the foreign police who in their incompetence tried to fit up our Gerry and Kate.

DC might fear for his political ambitions and SY might fear for theirs if they are tarred with that same brush, majority rules after all - but unless McCanns and Carter Ruck and the red tops under Murdoch really Do decide the news and not just report it - if they are truly King makers and will be allowed to make or break governments and the truth must be bent to their will -then the truth has to prevail, whatever it is.

To clear them unfairly could also be painted in the press as SY incompetence and corruption and in fact would be the case. they have to be led by investigative best practices. When in doubt do the right thing. Then even if unpopular you can't be shown to be corrupt and you can sleep at night (well, unless you are worried about being sacked).

Of course they could find in fact that an abduction took place and that the scenario of death in 5A was impossible. In which case I'd hope their reasons for their findings would be make public and if they arrive at this conclusion without reconstructing and re interviewing the key witnesses I don't see how anyone would accept that.

Not sure SY will be interviewing anyone,doubt thats in their jurisdiction.Thought they were just talking to the PJ and considering the paperwork.Most likely be a big inconclusive fudge,wont do to be critical of another force and the mccanns are too pathetic to haul in now.

Lioned wrote:Not sure SY will be interviewing anyone,doubt thats in their jurisdiction.Thought they were just talking to the PJ and considering the paperwork.Most likely be a big inconclusive fudge,wont do to be critical of another force and the mccanns are too pathetic to haul in now.

That sounds about right. No wonder McCanns welcome this if it's just about reviewing the PJ paperwork and not re interviewing people and checking alibis - how do you do THAT, without re interviewing THEM, though?

SY has to have questions about the interviews and witness statements, to skip over the night of May 3rd and the babysitting practices neither helps them identify a proper time line so they can rule the McCanns in or out - nor to find a timeline that allows them to rule anyone else in or out including what the abductor must have known about their nightly multiple-hour absences that would have made an abduction feasible to plan and to carry out.

Starting from 920 even, when Jane SAW the abductor take Madeleine, saying they believe that - you have to look at Matt's statement about what he saw on his first check, windows and shutters down - and what Gerry saw at 915, what Jane saw at 920 (and what Jez, and Gerry saw at 920 or did not see) and what Matt then saw at 930.

An abductor didnt get in and out that window and sedate those kids and take one, under their noses, in under five minutes. And walk past three dutifully checking parents when he could have gone another way.

If Kate opened the window to cover for their leaving the doors open initially, as a point of access, then the window is a red herring - of HER making - and not one of the abductor which makes no sense as Pat Brown shows. Abductors dont sit around throwing up red herrings, they get in and do what they do and get out asap.

If the abductor got in the sliding door, after watching them NOT CHECK their kids for hours at a time, then he had more time, or would have thought he did. And it's far more likely he did wait and watch and get in at the door.

No one went in or out the window so what was the point of it being open, wide, as it would have had to have been, as of 910-ish? After matt checked but before Gerry did? If he came in the window afte rmatt's first check, then why did Gerry not notice that open window and why no signs of jemmying, and why did gerry then SAY that it was jemmied? And Kate says in her book Gerry found to his dismay it could be easily opened from outside where as Fiona says she went and checked and it was clear it wasn't possible to do.

If he went out the window (which would be ludicrous given the door two feet away) why did he do that and how, in either case, did he leave no trace? if he went neither in nor out the window, then why was it open? If he handed Maddie out it, she'd have been sedated, when did they do that, after Gerry left, and before Jane saw the abductor? There was NO TIME to sedate her and have that take hold- much less the twins as well. There was no trace that anything moved in or out that window or that anyone touched it but Kate.

If the checks weren't done visually on the half hour, it opens up two lines, A, the abductor had way more time to operate in than McCanns version leads us to believe, and therefore he COULD have gotten in and grabbed her, or even interfered with her killed her and removed the body and hence his dna traces to avoid capture - but which was impossible under the timelines they presented -and B if the T9 were lying about the timelines and checks and the window-- what else were they lying about, and why? What was so much more important than aiding the investigation of a LIVE, MISSING little girl?

What about the dogs? The erased messages? The lies to the family about jemmied windows? The delay in calling the police? Mrs Fenns' statement about them being gone at LEAST 75 minutes two nights before, an abductor could have thought he had plenty of time if they didn't check rigorously? All highly indicative of something other than the nightly half hourly checks and the sighting of the abductor at 920 and the open window break-in. Much of which (apart from the dogs) makes the abduction MORE likely rather than less - if they were lying. If they weren't lying the abduction is damned near impossible without a time machine. If they were lying, then they are guilty of something, if only covering for neglect in their fear of condemnation. Would you be so worried about your reputation for checking that you'd intentionally mislead an investigation for your child's disappearance, cause cops to suspect YOU?

To gloss over that and check alibis of various other suspects is nothing short of investigative malpractice. The minutes around Jane's sighting or at least between Gerry's check and Kate's, are KEY, if you accept their version. SY has to look at that.

Sorry all but not sure of where to post my question.
antoinette seems to be no longer here or am i wrong?
hope shehasnt gone because she ws always fair.

snowflake wrote:Sorry all but not sure of where to post my question.
antoinette seems to be no longer here or am i wrong?
hope shehasnt gone because she ws always fair.

Antoinette is Admin of this forum and hasn't gone anywhere.

Claudia79 wrote:

snowflake wrote:Sorry all but not sure of where to post my question.
antoinette seems to be no longer here or am i wrong?
hope shehasnt gone because she ws always fair.

Antoinette is Admin of this forum and hasn't gone anywhere.

Good because she has always been very fair to me.