More Twitter rumours or is it about to happen?

Just seen this:-

Something weird happening in twitter!! Links and photos being whooshed within seconds of going on - allegedly GA's lawyers are now in receipt of the long awaited WOC documentation and are just about to submit it to Court!

Also this:-
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/04/libel-trial-update-appeal.html

i'm not holding my breath, got giddy too many times already.

Perhaps he could get the  medical and financial records whilst hes at it.....wonder  if SY  have  that  info..

I'm sat here with a migraine at the mo   (really)
Can someone explain the implications of this, if true?
I can't think straight   

I trust Astro about this info and I hope the document can make a difference:


"Libel Trial: Update & Appeal 30 Apr 2014


As many of you will know, the trial of the action that opposes the McCann couple to Gonçalo Amaral, and others, has been suspended, awaiting information about the status of Madeleine McCann as a Ward of Court.

The documentation that attests that status has been requested and obtained by Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer through a lawyer in London from the competent court, and will soon be delivered to the judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

The obtainment of said evidence was time-consuming and expensive, and the costs will be fully met by Gonçalo Amaral.

We appeal, once more, to those who are able to help us to collect the funds that are needed to cover this expense, to contribute through Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.

Thank you. "


Last time hopefully G.Amaral needs our financial support . Bottom of the page :http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/04/libel-trial-update-appeal.html

wjk wrote:I'm sat here with a migraine at the mo   (really)
Can someone explain the implications of this, if true?
I can't think straight   

Hope you feel better soon. I hate migraines xx

chrissie wrote:

wjk wrote:I'm sat here with a migraine at the mo   (really)
Can someone explain the implications of this, if true?
I can't think straight   

Hope you feel better soon.  I hate migraines xx

Thanks chrissie xx
I've not had one for ages and this has come out of the blue :-(

Yes, frencheuropean, it looks genuine, especially if Astro has it on the blog!
So this explains the long delay then?

Poor you wjk, hope you feel better soon.


I thought though that in the beginning they added Madeleine to the libel case then took her off due to being Informed they couldn't Include her due to the WOC.



I think there is more to it than being stated.



I wonder if the 'hindered the search for Madeleine' and her being a WOC.. which means the state looks after her welfare and makes decisions about her....means the Mccanns can't bring a lawsuit against Mr Amaral because in the eyes off the law, Madeleine 'belongs' to the state and not them, they after all signed her over to the state....the decisions are made by the State.

Thanks kitti xx
 
Yes, thats what I'm thinking. There must be something very important about this for Snr Amaral to go to the time and expense to get this info.
Will be very interesting to see where this goes now?!

frencheuropean wrote:I trust Astro about this info and I hope the document can make a difference:


"Libel Trial: Update & Appeal 30 Apr 2014


As many of you will know, the trial of the action that opposes the McCann couple to Gonçalo Amaral, and others, has been suspended, awaiting information about the status of Madeleine McCann as a Ward of Court.

The documentation that attests that status has been requested and obtained by Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer through a lawyer in London from the competent court, and will soon be delivered to the judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

The obtainment of said evidence was time-consuming and expensive, and the costs will be fully met by Gonçalo Amaral.

We appeal, once more, to those who are able to help us to collect the funds that are needed to cover this expense, to contribute through Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.

Thank you. "


Last time hopefully G.Amaral needs our financial support . Bottom of the page :http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/04/libel-trial-update-appeal.html

Like many many other people, I've made a donation towards Snr Amaral's financial support and I'm ready to make another donation. I'm absolutely appalled that Snr Amaral has been plunged into a situation where he has to rely on support from people like myself, due to his bank account being frozen, by the actions of the McCanns lawyers on behalf of them.

Again the McCanns were the ones who started the ball rolling, when for reasons known only to themselves, they embarked on behaviour, which would lead to Madeleine's disappearance. Why have the McCanns bank accounts not been frozen? I know the McCanns have two remaining children who need financial support, but so do the children and wife of Snr Amaral.

If the McCanns lose this case, they will not be out of pocket because they have a fund that was set up by Richard Branson with money contributed by Richard Branson and others, which is separate from Madeleine's fund and is to be used to pay for lawyers fees. Even if there isn't enough money in this account or Madeleine's account, to pay costs for themselves, Snr Amaral and the others involved with this lawsuit, the McCanns will in my opinion, receive help from their wealthy backers, who for reasons best known to themselves and the McCanns, have supported them for the past 7yrs.

kitti wrote:Poor you wjk, hope you feel better soon.


I thought though that in the beginning they added Madeleine to the libel case then took her off due to being Informed they couldn't Include her due to the WOC.



I think there is more to it than being stated.



I wonder if the 'hindered the search for Madeleine' and her being a WOC..  which means the state looks after her welfare and makes decisions about her....means the Mccanns can't bring a lawsuit against Mr Amaral because in the eyes off the law, Madeleine 'belongs' to the state and not them, they after all signed her over to the state....the decisions are made by the State.

IMO the MCanns can bring a lawsuit against Amaral in their own name ( and may be the twins) for the alleged  "damages" to their health and reputation but they can't about Madeleine if she is still a WOC. Now, what the repercussions on the trial? They will have probably to withdraw her name and her part of the claimed damages from the documents. I don't think it could invalidate the trial because it's a side aspect of the complaint but who knows?

frencheuropean wrote:

kitti wrote:Poor you wjk, hope you feel better soon.


I thought though that in the beginning they added Madeleine to the libel case then took her off due to being Informed they couldn't Include her due to the WOC.



I think there is more to it than being stated.



I wonder if the 'hindered the search for Madeleine' and her being a WOC..  which means the state looks after her welfare and makes decisions about her....means the Mccanns can't bring a lawsuit against Mr Amaral because in the eyes off the law, Madeleine 'belongs' to the state and not them, they after all signed her over to the state....the decisions are made by the State.

IMO the MCanns can bring a lawsuit against Amaral in their own name ( and may be the twins) for the alleged  "damages" to their health and reputation but they can't about Madeleine if she is still a WOC. Now, what the repercussions on the trial? They will have probably to withdraw her name and her part of the claimed damages from the documents. I don't think it could invalidate the trial because it's a side aspect of the complaint but who knows?

I thought she'd already been removed, before the start of the trial?

That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

chrissie wrote:That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

I don't quite understand what information Amaral had to pay for. We know, through mccannfiles and various other sources that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on such and such a date and after 7 years missing can be declared dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the McCanns claimed that Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine was dead affected their health , he may have wanted proof , like Doctors reports etc.

Panda wrote:

chrissie wrote:That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

I don't quite understand what information Amaral had to pay for. We know, through mccannfiles and various other sources that  Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on such and such a date and after 7 years missing can be declared dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the McCanns claimed that Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine was dead affected their health , he may have wanted proof , like Doctors reports etc.

I doubt that  documents from the maccanfiles and various other sources are accepted as legal in a Court of justice.I think, in a trial, the juge needs an official copy of the original document certified by the Court who delivered it.

frencheuropean wrote:

Panda wrote:

chrissie wrote:That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

I don't quite understand what information Amaral had to pay for. We know, through mccannfiles and various other sources that  Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on such and such a date and after 7 years missing can be declared dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the McCanns claimed that Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine was dead affected their health , he may have wanted proof , like Doctors reports etc.

I doubt that  documents from the maccanfiles and various other sources are accepted as legal in a Court of justice.I think, in a trial, the juge needs an official copy of the original document certified by the Court who delivered it.

Hi frenchperson, so what are these Documents that havn't been applied for until now.?

The Amaral's lawyer apparently asked the Court in England to have an official document, proof that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court. Why so late and what for, that are the questions.
The only explanation, for me is that the McCanns did present the complaint also in her name or not withdrawed it in time. But what use would be for the Amaral team this mistake if it's one? Cancel a trial that was in good shape for the defense?
Very mysterious. We have to wait. The trial will resume probably soon. It would be ironical if the new date coincides with the "anniversary" next week.

Panda wrote:

chrissie wrote:That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

I don't quite understand what information Amaral had to pay for. We know, through mccannfiles and various other sources that  Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on such and such a date and after 7 years missing can be declared dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the McCanns claimed that Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine was dead affected their health , he may have wanted proof , like Doctors reports etc.

It all looks like:

* Duarte asked for delay...because of some stupid 'expert Pike' stuff
* and UK is sitting on the needed documents about the WoC status (and asking money for them) which court in PT asked for (pointed out by Amaral and his lawyer)

Anyone surprised?
Have mccann or UK ever co-operated with Portugal?




I didn't think so   

frencheuropean wrote:The Amaral's lawyer apparently asked the Court in England to have an official document, proof that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court. Why so late and what for, that are the questions.
The only explanation, for me is that the McCanns did present the complaint also in her name or not withdrawed it in time. But what use would be for the Amaral team this mistake if it's one? Cancel a trial that was in good shape for the defense?
Very mysterious. We have to wait. The trial will resume probably soon. It would be ironical if the new date coincides with the "anniversary" next week.

Actually frenchperson, the McCanns DID put Madeleine's name , together with the twins but when it was pointed out that Madeleine was a Ward of Court , her name was removed. How the Twins health was affected when they were 3 at the time and Amaral,s book is published in Portugese is
beyond me.    

The court case was filed, with Maddie in it. And she was ward of court at the time. The question now is...is it legal. Wouldn't be first time mccanns break the law or the second...nor....

weissnicht wrote:

Panda wrote:

chrissie wrote:That's what I thought wjk, that it was picked up right at the beginning.

I don't quite understand what information Amaral had to pay for. We know, through mccannfiles and various other sources that  Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on such and such a date and after 7 years missing can be declared dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the McCanns claimed that Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine was dead affected their health , he may have wanted proof , like Doctors reports etc.

It all looks like:

* Duarte asked for delay...because of some stupid 'expert Pike' stuff
* and UK is sitting on the needed documents about the WoC status (and asking money for them) which court in PT asked for (pointed out by Amaral and his lawyer)

Anyone surprised?
Have mccann or UK ever co-operated with Portugal?




I didn't think so   

Hi weissnicht......what a bl***y farce this case has turned into , it's not funny any more. The Mcannfiles would have produced all the evidence Amaral's Lawyer needed and Duarte is doing exactly the same as she did at the injunction and getting away with it. The Judge should have set a time limit for Duarte because they had plenty of time until 7th January to find out what she needed to .

weissnicht wrote:The court case was filed, with Maddie in it. And she was ward of court at the time. The question now is...is it legal. Wouldn't be first time mccanns break the law or the second...nor....

If you mean the McCann v Amaral, it's true, Madeleine's name was removed soon after , so it can't be that . Madeleine was made a Ward of Court initially so that if anything happened to the Parents the Court would continue the search for her. The mcanns could have been charged with neglect which carried a 1 yr sentence, or neglect causing harm which carries a 10 yr sentence ....the one year sentence lapsed and I can only assume it was because Gordon Brown interfered.

Panda wrote:

weissnicht wrote:The court case was filed, with Maddie in it. And she was ward of court at the time. The question now is...is it legal. Wouldn't be first time mccanns break the law or the second...nor....

If you mean the McCann v Amaral, it's true, Madeleine's name was removed soon after , so it can't be that . Madeleine was made a Ward of Court initially so that if anything happened to the Parents the Court would continue the search for her. The mcanns could have been charged with neglect which carried a 1 yr sentence, or neglect causing harm which carries a 10 yr sentence ....the one year sentence lapsed and I can only assume it was because Gordon Brown interfered.

What you mean she was ward of court initially? Mc aplied her to be one, to get their hands on police files. And that was all before the so called libel case, where Maddie was included in the writ, despite mcs are not her legal guardians.
Many people wondered about it, me included, as everybosy knew inthat point that Maddie was a ward of court, howon earth could mcsadd her in the writ...to sue Amaral. It was bizarre move, if you ask me. And begs questions about mcs lawyers too. They should had advised their clients.

weissnicht wrote:

Panda wrote:

weissnicht wrote:The court case was filed, with Maddie in it. And she was ward of court at the time. The question now is...is it legal. Wouldn't be first time mccanns break the law or the second...nor....

If you mean the McCann v Amaral, it's true, Madeleine's name was removed soon after , so it can't be that . Madeleine was made a Ward of Court initially so that if anything happened to the Parents the Court would continue the search for her. The mcanns could have been charged with neglect which carried a 1 yr sentence, or neglect causing harm which carries a 10 yr sentence ....the one year sentence lapsed and I can only assume it was because Gordon Brown interfered.

What you mean she was ward of court initially? Mc aplied her to be one, to get their hands on police files. And that was all before the so called libel case, where Maddie was included in the writ, despite mcs are not her legal guardians.
Many people wondered about it, me included, as everybosy knew inthat point that Maddie was a ward of court, howon earth could mcsadd her in the writ...to sue Amaral. It was bizarre move, if you ask me. And begs questions about mcs lawyers too. They should had advised their clients.

Weissnicht , the McCanns made Madeleine a Ward of Court before they left Portugal and after they set up the Fund. It was done so that if anything happened to the McCanns, like a jail sentence, the Court would continue the search for Madeleine and be in charge of anything to do with her legally.
I wondered at the time why none of the Family Members were chosen, but there you go. The McCanns asked the Ward of Court Justice to request Leicester Police to release any information they might have on the search for Madeleine but the LP Chief refused saying the case was ongoing so the McCanns had to be content with 89 pages of inconsequential information.

Their lawyer Isabel Duarte is expected to set out the case - on behalf of Mrs McCann, her husband Gerry and their twins Sean and Amelie, now eight - at Lisbon's civil court..Madeleines name is not on it.

kitti wrote:
Their lawyer Isabel Duarte is expected to set out the case - on behalf of Mrs McCann, her husband Gerry and their twins Sean and Amelie, now eight - at Lisbon's civil court..Madeleines name is not on it.

Yes, I knew Madeleine,s name had been taken off. So after 3 months , Duarte must have set out her case and one would have expected the trial date to be given. the 7th Jan was meant to be the closing date.