The Gonçalo Amaral v Marcos Aragão Correia has been postponed until March 29

Perhaps the 'latest setback' is the fact that we are not taking the 'rumour' seriously, Palmeras16.

You really think his wife would hurt him and HIS children .....get a life.

Let's bear in mind that if the rumours are true, that being called as a witness does not mean that the person has volunteered to be one. It only means that the party doing the calling has reason to believe that a sworn statement by that person could help their own case.

thats true Annaesse. Ill await comments from Claudia, if she is in a position to confirm or deny.

tanszi wrote:thats true Annaesse. Ill await comments from Claudia, if she is in a position to confirm or deny.

Just as Mike Gunnill has not volunteered to be a witness for Tony Bennett, and probably won't volunteer, witnesses for the crazy lawyer may not have volunteered, should we see that their names are on his list.

I've always know that Palmeras is a troll and his/her only reason to be here on MM is obviously trolling. And, of course, the only reason why she/he is still here is because his/her trolling is entertaining and representative of a certain side's worries. I have nothing to confirm or deny because I haven't asked anything anyone. And I haven't asked because I'm sick and tired of picking up the phone every time a slime ball decides to write a piece of carp on one of the cesspits they inhabit.
That said, That said, what I did not know was that Palmeras was thick. A small legal lesson for all the brainless McCann a**s-lickers: no one can refuse to be a witness. Very recently I had to be in court as a witness for a person very dear to me. I knew that person would call me as a witness and in fact I was the one who volunteered to do it. But I was called as a witness by the opposing party too. And I could not say no. As a detail, the opposing party is now, I assume, regretful to have called me as a witness.

ETA: Therefore, being called a witness is just that. Being called a witness. What matters is what you say when you testify. That is what matters and that is what influences a decision. One way or another. That said, I have no idea about the names of the witnesses. And I have no plans to find out. At least for now.

AnnaEsse wrote:

tanszi wrote:thats true Annaesse. Ill await comments from Claudia, if she is in a position to confirm or deny.

Just as Mike Gunnill has not volunteered to be a witness for Tony Bennett, and probably won't volunteer, witnesses for the crazy lawyer may not have volunteered, should we see that their names are on his list.

Should have read your post before posting, Anna. brilliant minds and all that.

Palmeras16 wrote:

Iris wrote:Claudia has previously given us information which later turned out to be quite correct, so as far as I am concerned she is a reliable source, based on her track record. You, on the other hand, have come here with - in your own words - a "rumour", with no source, evidence or any substantiation whatsoever. For all we know you could have just made it up yourself. So don't be surprised when we don't get all hot and bothered about it.

No problem Iris, you're entitled to take the ostrich view on this latest setback if that suits you best.

What setback would that be then? A "rumour" (your words) that you can't even tell us where you got it from, and because I don't automatically believe it, that makes me an "ostrich"? Is this some kind of a joke, because if it's an insult then it's not a very clever one. And if you believe every rumour you hear, without even knowing where it came from, then that makes YOU a gullible mug. I've got a nice bridge for sale if you're interested.

Iris wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

Iris wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

Panda wrote:I think this is all very suspect, Cabrito withdrawing from acting as Amaral's Lawyer, Duarte representing Correia, a suspended sentence hanging like the Sword of Damocles over Amaral's head.......all of a sudden I am getting bad vibes about him winning the McCann/Amaral case.

Yes indeed, particularly if rumours that Mr Amarals wife, Alexandra Sofia de Sousa Manjua Leal, and his brother, António de Sousa Amaral, are due to testify on behalf of Marcos Aragão Correia are true.

Really, and where might those "rumours" have come from? Any idiot can start a "rumour".

I'm certain that Claudia will be able to shed light on this latest event, if she's permitted to divulge secret information of course.

Claudia has previously given us information which later turned out to be quite correct, so as far as I am concerned she is a reliable source, based on her track record. You, on the other hand, have come here with - in your own words - a "rumour", with no source, evidence or any substantiation whatsoever. For all we know you could have just made it up yourself. So don't be surprised when we don't get all hot and bothered about it.

Claudia79 wrote:I've always know that Palmeras is a troll and his/her only reason to be here on MM is obviously trolling. And, of course, the only reason why she/he is still here is because his/her trolling is entertaining and representative of a certain side's worries. I have nothing to confirm or deny because I haven't asked anything anyone. And I haven't asked because I'm sick and tired of picking up the phone every time a slime ball decides to write a piece of carp on one of the cesspits they inhabit.
That said, That said, what I did not know was that Palmeras was thick. A small legal lesson for all the brainless McCann a**s-lickers: no one can refuse to be a witness. Very recently I had to be in court as a witness for a person very dear to me. I knew that person would call me as a witness and in fact I was the one who volunteered to do it. But I was called as a witness by the opposing party too. And I could not say no. As a detail, the opposing party is now, I assume, regretful to have called me as a witness.

ETA: Therefore, being called a witness is just that. Being called a witness. What matters is what you say when you testify. That is what matters and that is what influences a decision. One way or another. That said, I have no idea about the names of the witnesses. And I have no plans to find out. At least for now.

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras16 wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I've always know that Palmeras is a troll and his/her only reason to be here on MM is obviously trolling. And, of course, the only reason why she/he is still here is because his/her trolling is entertaining and representative of a certain side's worries. I have nothing to confirm or deny because I haven't asked anything anyone. And I haven't asked because I'm sick and tired of picking up the phone every time a slime ball decides to write a piece of carp on one of the cesspits they inhabit.
That said, That said, what I did not know was that Palmeras was thick. A small legal lesson for all the brainless McCann a**s-lickers: no one can refuse to be a witness. Very recently I had to be in court as a witness for a person very dear to me. I knew that person would call me as a witness and in fact I was the one who volunteered to do it. But I was called as a witness by the opposing party too. And I could not say no. As a detail, the opposing party is now, I assume, regretful to have called me as a witness.

ETA: Therefore, being called a witness is just that. Being called a witness. What matters is what you say when you testify. That is what matters and that is what influences a decision. One way or another. That said, I have no idea about the names of the witnesses. And I have no plans to find out. At least for now.

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that, I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Think what you want of me because I'm sure of my opinion of you. And no, if you say I confirmed it, you will be a liar, as well as a troll and a thick one. I haven't made a move to confirm or deny anything. Not a phone call, not a text, zilch. And I won't. What I can confirm because I've been through it, is that people can't refuse to be a witness.
Don't worry about me. I'm fine, thankfully. Low blood pressure but that runs in the family. Nothing a good ristretto (or five) doesn't solve.

"Ad hominem", eh?

IIRC that was a favoured expression by a recently departed Member. Perhaps it's a club motto, after a fashion?

Palmeras16 wrote:

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras that is quite frankly a ridiculous assumption to make!

margaret wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras that is quite frankly a ridiculous assumption to make!

Well, let's just wait and see Margaret.

Palmeras16 wrote:

margaret wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras that is quite frankly a ridiculous assumption to make!

Well, let's just wait and see Margaret.

I can wait..... l'm just trying to see where anyone confirmed it for you?

Palmeras16 wrote:

margaret wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras that is quite frankly a ridiculous assumption to make!

Well, let's just wait and see Margaret.

Can you wait quietly Palmeras?

If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

margaret wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

margaret wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

It’s such a pity when moderators descend into ad hominem attacks on people who present views with which they disagree. Nevertheless it would seem that you have inadvertently confirmed that Mr Amarals wife and brother have been called as witnesses, so for that I thank you. I do hope that I've not got you too hot and bothered.

Palmeras that is quite frankly a ridiculous assumption to make!

Well, let's just wait and see Margaret.

I can wait..... l'm just trying to see where anyone confirmed it for you?

He just needs to contact the lawyer/psychic/nutter and ask him. I'm sure he'll know. And if he isn't sure, he'll ask the spirits.

Chris wrote:If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

I was called a hostile witness as well. As if I was ever capable of being hostile! I'm thinking of suing!

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

I was called a hostile witness as well. As if I was ever capable of being hostile! I'm thinking of suing!

Heaven forfend!

Chris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

I was called a hostile witness as well. As if I was ever capable of being hostile! I'm thinking of suing!

Heaven forfend!

See the kind of thing people make up, Chris? I'm forced to hire CR. Or the Portuguese version.

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

I was called a hostile witness as well. As if I was ever capable of being hostile! I'm thinking of suing!

Heaven forfend!

See the kind of thing people make up, Chris? I'm forced to hire CR. Or the Portuguese version.

Processar, Agarrá-lo e Executar?

Chris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Chris wrote:If one wants an example of a hostile witness one could do worse than watch Dacre's performance at the Leveson inquiry today, recalled at the behest of the lawyer to the "aggrieved" press victims (Grant in particular).

I was called a hostile witness as well. As if I was ever capable of being hostile! I'm thinking of suing!

Heaven forfend!

See the kind of thing people make up, Chris? I'm forced to hire CR. Or the Portuguese version.

Processar, Agarrá-lo e Executar?

I wouldn't go that far!