Daily Express....Fresh agony for Kate and Gerry McCann

Madeleine: Fresh agony for Kate and Gerry McCann

KATE and Gerry McCann face more agony next week when their libel action against a former Portuguese police chief comes to court in Lisbon.



Published: Sun, September 1, 2013









0Comments


McCanns Lawyer is confident she will win the case

The couple are seeking £1million in damages from Goncalo Amaral over allegations he made about the fate of their daughter Madeleine.

The hearing could not come at a worse time, however, as Scotland Yard detectives begin work in the Algarve to try to solve the six-year-old ­mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance. The Sunday Express understands officers have advised the couple not to attend the civil hearing.

They believe Kate and Gerry’s presence would provoke a media circus and could seriously damage their sensitive work on Portuguese soil.

However, Mr Amaral is expected to attend and give interviews on the steps of the court to support his view that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

He will say that under freedom of the press he has the right to air his views, especially as he was in a senior coordinating role early in the investigation.

A family friend said: “He has spent months working on his case and is very confident he will win.”

The search for Madeleine McCann continues


The couple are seeking £1million in damages from Goncalo Amaral over allegations he made about the fate of their daughter Madeleine

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns’ lawyer in Lisbon, said: “Kate and Gerry do not have to give evidence so they do not need to be here. I am confident of winning.” She is seeking damages for Kate, Gerry and their twins Sean and Amelie, plus further damages for the harm caused to the search for Madeleine.

It is expected some of the McCanns’ family will give evidence at the trial to explain the impact Mr Amaral’s allegations had on them and on the global hunt for the missing child.

A source said: “Because of the sensitivity of the situation, police don’t want the McCanns anywhere near the country because they fear it could turn into a media circus. They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best. It will be bad enough having all the old allegations dragged up again and repeated. No doubt Mr Amaral will want to say his bit outside the court and it will all flare up again. It will not be helpful for the Yard.”

Heart specialist Gerry and former GP Kate, both 45, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have vowed never to give up the search for Madeleine, who would now be 10.

Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “The court process in Portugal is in the hands of Kate and Gerry’s lawyers and is purely a matter for them to proceed with.”

Related articles
Madeleine McCann inquiry wins backing from Portugal

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425994/Madeleine-Fresh-agony-for-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann

Just come to post this. What utter nonsense, it isn't even listed in the court.

Excuses, Excuses Excuses.!!!!!

How can they possibly say the McCanns don't need to give evidence.?????

fred wrote:Just come to post this.  What utter nonsense, it isn't even listed in the court.

Morning fred,

I just commented and if you are the person making the claim, you don't have to be in Court??? In effect, Amaral's Lawyer will not be able to question the McCanns on how exactly his book caused such distress. I tell you fred, this is another whitewash before it even starts, I hope the Portugese Judiciary force the McCanns to attend. SY got no business interfering or commenting on this., I'm furious. 

If Gonçalo Amaral wanted to call the McCanns as witnesses he could but it seems that they were not included on his list of witnesses. BTW, neither party has to be in court, only their lawyers need to be there. This cr*p about their presence disturbing the investigation is only a ploy to justify their absence since they probably never intended to attend anyway, especially after the PR disaster in 2010. Also, they think that if they do not go to Lisbon most journalists will stay at home and noone will report on the evidence given in the courtroom.

Carolina wrote:If Gonçalo Amaral wanted to call the McCanns as witnesses he could but it seems that they were not included on his list of witnesses. BTW, neither party has to be in court, only their lawyers need to be there. This cr*p about their presence disturbing the investigation is only a ploy to justify their absence since they probably never intended to attend anyway, especially after the PR disaster in 2010. Also, they think that if they do not go to Lisbon most journalists will stay at home and noone will report on the evidence given in the courtroom.

Morning Carolina, they tried a long time ago to use a video rather than attend the Trial , but this was rejected. I find that strange that neither party has to attend, how can a proper judgement be made if the Defence wants to question the Plaintiff about his claims that his health and his childrens, was affected by the Defendants book. ?

Carolina wrote:If Gonçalo Amaral wanted to call the McCanns as witnesses he could but it seems that they were not included on his list of witnesses. BTW, neither party has to be in court, only their lawyers need to be there. This cr*p about their presence disturbing the investigation is only a ploy to justify their absence since they probably never intended to attend anyway, especially after the PR disaster in 2010. Also, they think that if they do not go to Lisbon most journalists will stay at home and noone will report on the evidence given in the courtroom.

Spot on and well said!

Panda wrote:

Carolina wrote:If Gonçalo Amaral wanted to call the McCanns as witnesses he could but it seems that they were not included on his list of witnesses. BTW, neither party has to be in court, only their lawyers need to be there. This cr*p about their presence disturbing the investigation is only a ploy to justify their absence since they probably never intended to attend anyway, especially after the PR disaster in 2010. Also, they think that if they do not go to Lisbon most journalists will stay at home and noone will report on the evidence given in the courtroom.

Morning Carolina, they tried a long time ago to use a video rather than attend the Trial , but this was rejected. I find that strange that neither party has to attend, how can a proper judgement be made if the Defence wants to question the Plaintiff about his claims that his health and his childrens, was affected by the Defendants book. ?

Both parties draw up a list of their witnesses before the trial and the McCanns are not included in the list presented by GA, therefore they will not be questioned. Each party has the right to present a maximum of 10 witnesses. IIRC, in 2010 one of the witnesses for GA testified by video conference, I believe that is was Magalhães Menezes.

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns’ lawyer in Lisbon, said: “Kate and Gerry do not have to give evidence so they do not need to be here. I am confident of winning.”

Oh really?
Is that why, at the beginning of the year, the McCanns were desperate to settle out of court because they were told they could not win?
And if you are so confident of winning, and they will be in receipt of £1m, why does the headline insist that they are in agony?
If i thought I'd win a case and get £1m out of it, I'd be dancing in the street!
Do you think we're all bloody stupid?

Fresh agony?  I think the Scum needs some bloody fresh headlines, that one's been done to death.

The McCanns know they are not going to win.  Else they'd be right there on the Court steps with their cuddle cat and hangdog expressions and entire media circus.

And if it is really going to cause them all that "fresh agony" - they could always just stop it.

Panda wrote:

Carolina wrote:If Gonçalo Amaral wanted to call the McCanns as witnesses he could but it seems that they were not included on his list of witnesses. BTW, neither party has to be in court, only their lawyers need to be there. This cr*p about their presence disturbing the investigation is only a ploy to justify their absence since they probably never intended to attend anyway, especially after the PR disaster in 2010. Also, they think that if they do not go to Lisbon most journalists will stay at home and noone will report on the evidence given in the courtroom.

Morning Carolina, they tried a long time ago to use a video rather than attend the Trial , but this was rejected. I find that strange that neither party has to attend, how can a proper judgement be made if the Defence wants to question the Plaintiff about his claims that his health and his childrens, was affected by the Defendants book. ?

If I have got this right, the onus is on the McCanns to prove that GA harmed the search. If they don't turn up and don't answer questions, then they are only damaging their own case. The Judges won't have enough evidence to find in their favour, so the victory will go to GA. The McCanns have really painted themselves into a corner this time.

Handy tip for the McCanns - if you don't want to be in agony, don't do the vexatious litigation gig in the first place.
If you're in agony, YOU caused it!

This 'poor us' attitude reminds me of the two brothers who disposed of their parents for their money and then had the brass neck to beg for leniency because they were orphans!

It is of course a Sunday Express headline.
 
I like to think that they are doing to their best to alert people to the other side of the story. At face value, the headline suggests that the dear old Gruesomes have yet again to face the man who made such nasty slurs against their good names (tongue firmly in cheek there) and that will bring back all the anguish of their loss. It would bring tears to the eyes of a statue!
 
However, by printing the information about the forthcoming hearing, which as far as I know most mainstream media is avoiding like the plague, it is giving people the opportunity to check things out for themselves.

And of course, the obvious one, that if SY are in Portugal as part on their ongoing review/investigation, how the heck can the McCanns say that Amaral's book damaged the search, when one of the world's most famous (cough) police forces are looking for her!

Perhaps this is a reason for Redwood's dead or alive theory and the lack of inclusion of the parents in the initial list of persons of interest, it publicly demonstrates that SY started their review without a preconceived idea of what happened to Madeleine and therefore the McCanns can't say that Amaral's hypothesis swayed them in any way..

Yup, looks like the McCanns have well and truly shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:It is of course a Sunday Express headline.
 
I like to think that they are doing to their best to alert people to the other side of the story. At face value, the headline suggests that the dear old Gruesomes have yet again to face the man who made such nasty slurs against their good names (tongue firmly in cheek there) and that will bring back all the anguish of their loss. It would bring tears to the eyes of a statue!
 
However, by printing the information about the forthcoming hearing, which as far as I know most mainstream media is avoiding like the plague, it is giving people the opportunity to check things out for themselves.

I think you could be right NBY, and not one description of Snr Amaral as disgraced, or bumbling, shambolic etc, just lists him as the former detective in charge of the case, and they also highlight the main point of his theory, that Madeleine died in the apartment.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:It is of course a Sunday Express headline.
 
I like to think that they are doing to their best to alert people to the other side of the story. At face value, the headline suggests that the dear old Gruesomes have yet again to face the man who made such nasty slurs against their good names (tongue firmly in cheek there) and that will bring back all the anguish of their loss. It would bring tears to the eyes of a statue!
 
However, by printing the information about the forthcoming hearing, which as far as I know most mainstream media is avoiding like the plague, it is giving people the opportunity to check things out for themselves.

However, Mr Amaral is expected to attend and give interviews on the steps of the court to support his view that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

He will say that under freedom of the press he has the right to air his views, especially as he was in a senior coordinating role early in the investigation.

There you go! The Express has alerted the readers to these interesting details and many of them, I'm sure, will be looking out for the interviews. Also, the Express has stressed Amaral's role in the investigation: he coordinated it and police are allowed to develop theories! It's their job!

"He will say that under freedom of the press he has the right to air his views"
________________________________________________________
Silly man! (joking)

ONLY the McCanns, and their families and their spokesman have the right to air their views!

Anybody who has a different 'view' is NOT allowed to say ANYTHING about ANYTHING!

Or the McCanns will SUE them!

A source said: “Because of the sensitivity of the situation, police don’t want the McCanns anywhere near the country because they fear it could turn into a media circus. They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best. It will be bad enough having all the old allegations dragged up again and repeated. No doubt Mr Amaral will want to say his bit outside the court and it will all flare up again. It will not be helpful for the Yard.”

Oh Mr Source, you are sounding rather petulant and churlish re Mr Amaral speaking on the court steps.
Of course, if your bosses weren't so scared of turning up for the case, they could do exactly the same.
Except one of them might turn into a raging volcano again and insist that his wife didn't have a dream.
And then be suddenly called away for urgent work duties .....

How could anyone not turn up for a trial which they themselves instigated?
Is it really good enough to hide behind rellies who will be wheeled on to say how proper poorly they've both been since the book was written? It will be a very uncomfortable experience for them. Squeaky Bum Time hardly covers it.
Who in the world, who had any sense of decency, would put their families through this?

did the SY really advise the Mcs not to attend.  don't tell me it was another call me Stu moment where there was little to achieve by their attending.  oh what was that about a media storm, isn't that what the McCs have always wanted from the start, and how could their presence damage the SY search for Madeleine.  jimo.

oh and the McCs will do what the police think is best. pity they didn't do that in Portugal, where the police requested little publicity, that they not make a bit deal of Madeleines colomboma lest she be harmed because of it, oh and im sure that theres more jimo.

almostgothic wrote:A source said: “Because of the sensitivity of the situation, police don’t want the McCanns anywhere near the country because they fear it could turn into a media circus. They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best. It will be bad enough having all the old allegations dragged up again and repeated. No doubt Mr Amaral will want to say his bit outside the court and it will all flare up again. It will not be helpful for the Yard.”

Oh Mr Source, you are sounding rather petulant and churlish re Mr Amaral speaking on the court steps.
Of course, if your bosses weren't so scared of turning up for the case, they could do exactly the same.
Except one of them might turn into a raging volcano again and insist that his wife didn't have a dream.
And then be suddenly called away for urgent work duties .....

How could anyone not turn up for a trial which they themselves instigated?
Is it really good enough to hide behind rellies who will be wheeled on to say how proper poorly they've both been since the book was written? It will be a very uncomfortable experience for them. Squeaky Bum Time hardly covers it.
Who in the world, who had any sense of decency, would put their families through this?

And anyway, any 'relatives' 'evidence' WOULD all be HEARSAY............................totally inadmissible in any court.

in·ad·mis·si·ble

Adjective
(esp. of evidence in court) Not allowable; not accepted as valid.
Synonyms
impermissible - unacceptable - unallowable

They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best.

Well, that will be a first, then. They were told not to publicise Maddie's eye defect. They sent private investigators into Portugal knowing full well that running a parallel investigation was illegal. And then there are the infamous 48 questions - and the 49th, that Kate did answer.

Iris wrote:

They have faith in the Yard investigation and will do what the police feel is best.

Well, that will be a first, then.  They were told not to publicise Maddie's eye defect.  They sent private investigators into Portugal knowing full well that running a parallel investigation was illegal.  And then there are the infamous 48 questions - and the 49th, that Kate did answer.

Which was, of course:
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. KATE MCCANN: 'YES, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
___________________________________________________________

So WHO 'harmed' the investigation more?

GA, who sought for the truth into the disappearance of a child?
Or
KM, who jeopardised the investigation into the disappearance of a child?

I can see why KM did NOT answer Q48!

Q48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

Obviously KM bore total responsibility for her daughters 'disappearance' because she was NOT there when it 'happened'
She and her husband, and only them, 'created the conditions' for a possible 'abduction' to take place.
It really was ONLY their FAULT!

Mr Amaral is expected to attend and give interviews on the steps of the court to support his view that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

He will say that under freedom of the press he has the right to air his views, especially as he was in a senior coordinating role early in the investigation.


So, the above suggests that the two defences Amaral's legal team will be using in the hearing will be Justficiation (i.e. what he wrote is mostly factually true) and 'Honest comment' on a matter of public interest based on true facts. How hurtful and unhelpful his statements/views are is neither here nor there.

"Agony"???? I'll just bet Mr. Amaral could tell the McCanns a lot about agony.

I agree with "jeanmonroe", anything McCann relatives have to say would have to be considered hearsay and not admissable in court.

Why on earth would the McCanns not have to appear in court? Wouldn't anything their lawyers have to say be considered hearsay as well?

The so called "allegations" in the book are the result of the investigation PERIOD.

If their lawyer is so confident, why try to reach a settlement before trial?

Wonder why one "source" mentioned is Clarence Mitchell while the second is "unnamed"?

The police don't want the McCanns there......hmmmm? It couldn't be their lawyer who knows they would not be able to withstand cross examination. Surely their lawyer(s) know Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions makes her highly suspect in the "disappearance" of Madeleine.

I just hope now that the trial is being mentioned in the U.K. press, details of it will be covered as well. (Dare I hope for "accurately" covered?"