McCanns v Amaral

I've just paid a visit to Jill Havern's forumotion site. One of the posters has quoted an article that was written in the "Correio Da Mahna" The article states that the Chairman of the Portuguese Bar Association, Marinho Pinto, will testify in person, on behalf of the McCanns against Goncalo Amaral. The article also states that is was the McCanns, who postponed the libel trial, so several witness could be heard by video conference from England. I'm not saying whether the article is true or not, because I don't know if the Correio Da Mahna is a reliable newspaper.

http://www.jillhavern.forumotion.net-4284-mccann-v-amaral-trial-marinho-pinto-will-give-evidence-in-person-for-the-mccanns-against-goncalo-amaral-in-the-final-chapter-of-this-3-year-long-libel-claim.

Sorry, I should have said it was the Judge who postponed the libel trial at the McCanns request.

from the maccanfiles:

Marinho to testify, 28 January 2012

Marinho to testify Correio da Manhã

By M.A.G.
28 Janauary 2012 1:00 am

The president of the bar [Order of Lawyers], Marinho Pinto, will be a witness for the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral, in the civil case that Madeleine's parents have brought against the former coordinator of the Directorate of Judicial Police of Portimão, Correio da Manhã has learned.




The president Marinho Pinto


Marinho Pinto has made himself available to testify, in person, against the former coordinator at the trial that was scheduled to start next week but was postponed by the judge, who granted the request of the McCanns to hear several English witnesses by videoconference. Gonçalo Amaral was successful, in the Appeals Court, against the injunction which prevented publication of his book "The Truth of the Lie," where he defended the thesis that Maddie had died in the Algarve. The judges held that the prohibition of publication of the book violated the Constitution.

This may explain António Cabrita's reluctance to represent Mr Amaral at the trial.

Palmeras16 wrote:This may explain António Cabrita's reluctance to represent Mr Amaral at the trial.

Was it the McCanns who requested Tony Bennett's contempt of court trial, that was due to start in February was moved to April?

Palmeras16 wrote:This may explain António Cabrita's reluctance to represent Mr Amaral at the trial.

Nope.

I posted this recently:

But why is their reaction important? What they think (or what they want us to think is what they think) has no bearing in the truth. And they certainly aren't as well informed as they would wish or they would be discussing details it seems they have no idea about.
I can understand the disappointment because of the anticipation especially for someone who isn't used to the way things happen here. But I think people should get used to it. It's more likely than not to happen again. In this trials, with other trials related to this case or simply with trial sessions.

When I used they, I meant the pros who were saying Mr Amaral had asked for a postponement because he was so terrified of losing the court case. As always they know jack shit. Now they know. Or they think they do.

By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann. Firstly, he is known to take the side of criminals (the Ciprianos) and secondly judges hate him (he is currently being sued by one).

Marinho Pinto?? Was'nt this guy involved with the McS before?? Was he the guy a Portugese woman offered a tulip to on a vid I have seen recently??

Is the videon link to court too allow KM to give her twopenneth without having to face the trauma of attending court?? It would stop her having to squirm if questioned as she could have people helping her 'off-stage'???

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann.

Hark! I hear the sound of the barrel being scraped!

Palmeras16 wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann.

Hark! I hear the sound of the barrel being scraped!

So do I, or maybe it's just the whine of two trials being moved. And both by the same people.

Palmeras16 wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann.

Hark! I hear the sound of the barrel being scraped!

Really? So it was GA who asked for the postponement as your pals screamed from the roof tops?
Oh, and you could learn some Portuguese. There are many things you can read online about the relationship between Marinho Pinto and the judges in general. I recommend it. It's quite entertaining.

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann. Firstly, he is known to take the side of criminals (the Ciprianos) and secondly judges hate him (he is currently being sued by one).

Well that's cheered me up considerably!

Perhaps the McCanns will have Marcos Aragão Correia testify for them too.
That'll bring the house down!

Loved by the judges:


http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Nacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=1694961

http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=1807502

http://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/home.php?template=SHOWNEWS_V2&id=509569

http://www.tsf.pt/paginainicial/Portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1694584

http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=2033785

http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=1551529

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/marinho-pinto-lanca-ataque-ao-juiz-carlos-alexandre

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1664194

http://canais.sol.pt/paginainicial/sociedade/interior.aspx?content_id=166261

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/esta-e-boca/marinho-pinto-bastonario-advogados-gravidas-parto-tvi24/1266470-4087.html

And now the defamation case brought against him:

http://www.asjp.pt/2011/08/18/processo-a-marinho-por-difamacao-ao-juiz/

almostgothic wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann. Firstly, he is known to take the side of criminals (the Ciprianos) and secondly judges hate him (he is currently being sued by one).

Well that's cheered me up considerably!

Perhaps the McCanns will have Marcos Aragão Correia testify for them too.
That'll bring the house down!

That would be wonderful!

Claudia79 wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann. Firstly, he is known to take the side of criminals (the Ciprianos) and secondly judges hate him (he is currently being sued by one).

Well that's cheered me up considerably!

Perhaps the McCanns will have Marcos Aragão Correia testify for them too.
That'll bring the house down!

That would be wonderful!

And here was me thinking that the Pantomime season was over already.

Iris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:By the way, it's a very good idea to have them testifying for the McCann. Firstly, he is known to take the side of criminals (the Ciprianos) and secondly judges hate him (he is currently being sued by one).

Well that's cheered me up considerably!

Perhaps the McCanns will have Marcos Aragão Correia testify for them too.
That'll bring the house down!

That would be wonderful!

And here was me thinking that the Pantomime season was over already.

The good thing about this case, Iris, is that it never is.

Marcos Aragão Correia is the lawyer who lied by claiming that underworld sources had told him that Madeleine had been abducted, raped, killed and her body thrown into the Arada Dam. Admitting this was a deliberate lie, Marcos Correia then came up with a tale that his interest in Madeleine McCann began with a vision he had on 5 May 2007 in Madeira, when he saw a big strong man strangling a young blonde girl. He had this vision, he said, after attending his first-ever Spiritualist Church meeting. He has admitted meeting with Metodo 3 operatives at the Arada Dam, 7 weeks before a media blitz covered what he said was an attempt to recover Madeleine’s bones from the dam.

Annabel wrote:Marcos Aragão Correia is the lawyer who lied by claiming that underworld sources had told him that Madeleine had been abducted, raped, killed and her body thrown into the Arada Dam. Admitting this was a deliberate lie, Marcos Correia then came up with a tale that his interest in Madeleine McCann began with a vision he had on 5 May 2007 in Madeira, when he saw a big strong man strangling a young blonde girl. He had this vision, he said, after attending his first-ever Spiritualist Church meeting. He has admitted meeting with Metodo 3 operatives at the Arada Dam, 7 weeks before a media blitz covered what he said was an attempt to recover Madeleine’s bones from the dam.

Who said he lied? I don't think we can call mentally unstable people liars. It's not nice!

Claudia79 wrote:I posted this recently:

But why is their reaction important? What they think (or what they want us to think is what they think) has no bearing in the truth. And they certainly aren't as well informed as they would wish or they would be discussing details it seems they have no idea about.
I can understand the disappointment because of the anticipation especially for someone who isn't used to the way things happen here. But I think people should get used to it. It's more likely than not to happen again. In this trials, with other trials related to this case or simply with trial sessions.

When I used they, I meant the pros who were saying Mr Amaral had asked for a postponement because he was so terrified of losing the court case. As always they know jack shit. Now they know. Or they think they do.

I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

kathybelle wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I posted this recently:

But why is their reaction important? What they think (or what they want us to think is what they think) has no bearing in the truth. And they certainly aren't as well informed as they would wish or they would be discussing details it seems they have no idea about.
I can understand the disappointment because of the anticipation especially for someone who isn't used to the way things happen here. But I think people should get used to it. It's more likely than not to happen again. In this trials, with other trials related to this case or simply with trial sessions.

When I used they, I meant the pros who were saying Mr Amaral had asked for a postponement because he was so terrified of losing the court case. As always they know jack shit. Now they know. Or they think they do.

I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

As far as I can see on the other thread, all Claudia said was that GA confirmed it was postponed, not who called for the postponement.

Am I the only one wondering what Marinho Pinto will testify to?

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I posted this recently:

But why is their reaction important? What they think (or what they want us to think is what they think) has no bearing in the truth. And they certainly aren't as well informed as they would wish or they would be discussing details it seems they have no idea about.
I can understand the disappointment because of the anticipation especially for someone who isn't used to the way things happen here. But I think people should get used to it. It's more likely than not to happen again. In this trials, with other trials related to this case or simply with trial sessions.

When I used they, I meant the pros who were saying Mr Amaral had asked for a postponement because he was so terrified of losing the court case. As always they know jack shit. Now they know. Or they think they do.

I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

As far as I can see on the other thread, all Claudia said was that GA confirmed it was postponed, not who called for the postponement.

The news I didn't believe, was not that the case was postponed, but that Goncalo Amaral had requested the case was postponed. So when I was given a sarcastic reply by Claudia who said she had spoken to Goncalo Amaral, I could only presume that she had told him about the news item.

I never understood why I was the only poster to receive the sarcastic reply, because I wasn't the only poster who questioned the authenticity of the news item. It isn't as if I had even asked Claudia about the news item, because I didn't know she was Portuguese. All I said was maybe someone who is Portuguese could verify the report.

I still don't know what to believe, because the latest news item is in a Portuguese newspaper. I'm afraid I have no faith in newspapers, no matter which country they are printed in.

kathybelle wrote:I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras16 wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.