Trial postponed

As I said before, there were several possible reasons for the delay...

I was under the impression that the McCanns already removed Maddies name when they knew about the WOC. Could this be about the original claim, when her name was still on it?

Christine wrote:I was under the impression that the McCanns already removed Maddies name when they knew about the WOC. Could this be about the original claim, when her name was still on it?

I was under this inpression too, so I am surprised to hear that Madeleine is still listed in their lawsuit.

However, everyone who is listed on the lawsuit allegedly would have suffered harm. Are the McCanns, by listing Madeleine as a plaintiff, admitting that she has suffered harm? If so, then wouldn't they be opening themselves up to prosecution for neglect leading to harm? I don't believe that the statute of limitations has passed for that charge, as it carried an 8 or 10 year sentence.

All this B.S. all these years about there being absolutely no evidence that Madeleine has suffered any harm, yet they still want to list her as a plaintiff for collecting damages? Ridiculous!

Agreed jinvta....McCanns can't have it both ways...or even one way.

In fact , either way they lose. Not the smartest couple on the block!

It was plain greed when they added Madeleine's name to the list of claimants.

I hope the Judge has seen the happy , smiling faces of the McCanns over the last few years...quite a successful family business.

12th September 2013
Isabel Duarte [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon]: The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... Aaaand as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]

Journalist in situ: In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are FIVE

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

The above link needs the fullstop deleting...

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

Christine wrote:I was under the impression that the McCanns already removed Maddies name when they knew about the WOC. Could this be about the original claim, when her name was still on it?

Yes. That is my impression too.   

IF Dr Amaral loses, does that mean the book gets banned again? How will that work, then?

Iris wrote:IF Dr Amaral loses, does that mean the book gets banned again?  How will that work, then?

No, I don't think that's possible. If he loses he will have to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money the judge considers fair. The book issue is solved.

Claudia79 wrote:

Iris wrote:IF Dr Amaral loses, does that mean the book gets banned again?  How will that work, then?

No, I don't think that's possible. If he loses he will have to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money the judge considers fair. The book issue is solved.

Thanks Claudia.  So if he loses, he has to pay the McCanns; but can continue to sell the book? (Theoretically).  What a can of worms!  In fact, losing the trial might even make the book more popular than it is now.

ETA the last time I was in Court (as a witness, I hasten to add!) we had to sit through all the wee, daft cases before getting to our one. People getting drunk, petty assaults, tipping over bins, non payment of parking fines, stuff like that. Well, this poor old tramp was up for begging and annoying people outside M&S in the main shopping street. He was homeless and an alcoholic (you know the sort) but harmless enough. Well, the duty solicitor pleaded for mercy and said that his client was jobless and homeless and so couldn't pay a big fine. It would have to be a short custodial sentence or community service. The judge, in his wisdom, fined the poor old soul £50 with 7 days to pay and turned him loose.

When we left at dinnertime to go and get some lunch, sure enough, here was the old boy outside M&S, begging and pestering passers-by and trying to raise the £50 to pay the fine....

Iris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Iris wrote:IF Dr Amaral loses, does that mean the book gets banned again?  How will that work, then?

No, I don't think that's possible. If he loses he will have to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money the judge considers fair. The book issue is solved.

Thanks Claudia.  So if he loses, he has to pay the McCanns; but can continue to sell the book? (Theoretically).  What a can of worms!  In fact, losing the trial might even make the book more popular than it is now.

ETA the last time I was in Court (as a witness, I hasten to add!) we had to sit through all the wee, daft cases before getting to our one.  People getting drunk, petty assaults, tipping over bins, non payment of parking fines, stuff like that.  Well, this poor old tramp was up for begging and annoying people outside M&S in the main shopping street.  He was homeless and an alcoholic (you know the sort) but harmless enough.  Well, the duty solicitor pleaded for mercy and said that his client was jobless and homeless and so couldn't pay a big fine.  It would have to be a short custodial sentence or community service.  The judge, in his wisdom, fined the poor old soul £50 with 7 days to pay and turned him loose.  

When we left at dinnertime to go and get some lunch, sure enough, here was the old boy outside M&S, begging and pestering passers-by and trying to raise the £50 to pay the fine....

Yes, I think so, iris. That would be the logical thing. And as far as I know the McCanns did not ask for the book to be forbidden when they started these proceedings.

  

Did he have a poofy haircut and kept saying 'ludicrous' Iris?

Does anyone know what is happening with the trial. Was the information that the trial would be opened yesterday correct. This is all very strange indeed.

The last session of the trial was postponed. The judge will set a new date.

This jumped out at me.

Kate [from her book]
From kates book

*By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks.* We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.

And
'' A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a criminal investigation in any country, always make sure that you read the statement in your own language after you have have provided it. ''

Is Kate goiung to blame the PJ for errors made in her statements given to them, ?

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.




Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as does the interpreter.

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 6th of September 2007, at 3 p.m.


She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer.

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.



She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.

kitti wrote:This jumped out at me.

Kate [from her book]
From kates book

*By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks.* We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.

And
'' A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a criminal investigation in any country, always make sure that you read the statement in your own language after you have have provided it. ''

Is Kate goiung to blame the PJ for errors made in her statements given to them, ?

Kitti, she's on her own....  \This is the Woman who lied to the Police about the window open, shutters up curtain blowing and even though it was proved the shutter was down and only Kate's fingerprint on the window she had the nerve to re-enact the lie in the Channel 4 Programme.!!! Even Emma Loach had to drop Kate's role in the last Channel 4 programme because her testimony did not match any of the other Tapas statements. They had hired an American Actress who looked very much like Kate.

So is she saying she didn't read any off the statements and nor did her lawyer.

"'' A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a criminal investigation in any country, always make sure that you read the statement in your own language after you have have provided it. ''

What a very strange thing to say when you are talking about your beloved daughters disappearance/abduction

fuzeta wrote:"'' A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a criminal investigation in any country, always make sure that you read the statement in your own language after you have have provided it. ''

What a very strange thing to say when you are talking about your beloved daughters disappearance/abduction

Even stranger that that, after reporting your beloved daughter "missing", why refuse to answer all questions put to you by those in authority who are working to solve the mystery of her "disappearance", regardless of the consequences.

It sounds to me like Kate is trying to explain away all of the discrepancies that have been found in their statements. Unfortunately for her, may of the discrepancies cannot be explained by translation alone. Further, it is ironic that this woman should be offereing advice on how to avoid prosecution, but never, ever offered advice on how to avoid getting in the situation they found themselves in in the first place.

Her statement should have read "A word of advice, never, ever, leave your young children alone." Sadly, we have never, ever heard these words from either parent. Had they only done their duty as responsiblie parents, Madeleine would not be in the situation she found herself in and the parents would not need to be making statements.

Did the judge say something like 15 days for the paperwork to be sorted or am I getting muddled. (More than likely - my senior moments are getting more and more frequent!) Also by not answering the PJ questions at arguido time wasn't she hindering the investigation herself?

jay2001 wrote:Did the judge say something like 15 days for the paperwork to be sorted or am I getting muddled.  (More than likely - my senior moments are getting more and more frequent!)  Also by not answering the PJ questions at arguido time wasn't she hindering the investigation herself?

Not only 'hindering' but admits to possibly JEOPARDISING, putting at risk, the entire investigation into her own daughter's 'disappearance'.

Of which, she tells us later, she 'is GLAD the investigation is closed' just 4 months after Madeleine's 'disappearance'!

And she also informs the whole world:

"whether the case (into her daughter's 'disappearance') is re-opened, or NOT, it DOSEN'T matter"

Kate McCann, mother of the missing child.
Lisbon, 23rd September, 2009.
--------------------------------------------

i'm GLAD she isn't my mum!