From Anne Guedes Libel trial McCann v Goncalo Amaral - Day 12 - Gerald McCann's deposition 08 July 2014

From Anne Guedes
Libel trial McCann v Goncalo Amaral - Day 12 - Gerald McCann's deposition 08 July 2014


http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Gerry_McCann_08_07_2014.htm

Original Source: Anne Guedes


Libel trial Day 12 Gerry McCann deposition text from PDF 08-07-2014

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 12 - Gerald McCann's deposition

The hearing as it happened
(08.07.2014, 11am)
The lawyers asked for a pause after KMC's deposition. At the end of a 10' pause, the clerk arrived with GMC. He was asked to stand to answer the usual identity questions and commit himself to tell the truth.
Judge – When did you learn that Gonçalo Amaral's book had been published?
GMC says it was in April 2008, a friend sent them translations of media articles.
Judge – The book hadn't been published yet?
GMC – No. He says that the book was introduced in the media before it was published.
Judge – Was it through interviews?
GMC – Yes.
Judge – When was the book published?
GMC says it was published 3 days after the releasing of the AG final report.
Judge – When did you have access to the book?
GMC replies that he learnt through the media, particularly the Correio da Manhã, that the book was published. Portuguese friends daily translated for them what the media said.
Judge – Have you read the book entirely?
GMC says that he read translated parts. Only later a translation of the whole book was available.
Judge – When?
GMC – Later in 2008. He adds that he must say that their lawyer Rogério Alves read the book, made a report upon it and then had a discussion with them about it.
Judge – How did you feel?
GMC says that what was said in the media, before he himself read the book, was the cause of much anxiety for him.
Judge – And the book?
GMC says it was shocking. The book is an affront to him, to his wife, to his family and to the people who believe in them.
Judge – How did you feel?
GMC says that he obviously felt anguish, despair and of course anger reckoning that someone so close to the investigation alleges claims without evidence that his missing daughter is unequivocally dead. The most important issue for them was that the book was read by hundreds of thousands of people and widely publicised. That made the people believe in the conclusions, preventing information about Madeleine from being brought up.
Judge – Then the documentary was broadcast?
GMC says that it was even worse then.
Judge – Why?
GMC explains that it states right at the beginning that Madeleine is dead, that there was no abduction, that he and his wife are liars, that they are cold and ruthless enough to hide a body instead of rending assistance. There's no evidence of that and the evidence that the documentary presents doesn't match.
Judge – Have you watched the documentary?
GMC watched it on the Web.
Judge – Have you been feeling the same as with the book?
GMC says it was worst.
Judge – In what way?
GMC says it was horrible to realise that people were watching something that wasn't true. They were working very hard on the investigation, including people in the Algarve who had been brought in to help. The documentary destroyed all the possibilities of obtaining assistance.
Judge – Do you know about interviews of Gonçalo Amaral in the Correio da Manhã ?
GMC says that he read many interviews.
Judge – What about interviews upon the thesis of the book?
GMC argues that there were many articles on the theme published in the Correio da Manhã and also in other newspapers.
Judge – Do you remember an article published in (30) Julho 2008 in the Correio da Manhã ?
GMC remarks that articles were published almost on a daily basis and asks whether he can see the headline.
The Judge asks the clerk to show the article to GMC, says that the header is
"Madeleine died in the flat" and ask the interpreter to translate the beginning of the article.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/noticia.aspx?channelid=00000009-0000-0000-0000-000000000009&contentid=F4C302DD-058C-44C9-8D9E-84C08B61B68C
Judge – Do you remember it?
GMC says that he saw that in many other newspapers.
The Judge observes that this was the first of a series of excerpts of "A verdade da Mentira" published by the Correio da Manhã.
Judge – Have you had insomnia, lack of appetite?
GMC says there were not many nights without thinking of that book. Anxiety was big and of course appetite was failing, but it wasn't permanent.
Judge – Have you observed that people thought differently of you after the publication of the book?
GMC notes that it is difficult to answer because this requires knowing what the people thought before.
Judge – Do you think that for most people these theories are true?
GMC argues that there was clearly no evidence that Madeleine was dead and that nothing supported that Kate and him were anyhow responsible. People strongly believed them, but after the book was published and after a huge media coverage most Portuguese stopped believing because they were bombarded by the idea of Madeleine's death and of a staged abduction.
Judge – What about the public in the UK?
GMC says that, thanks to the legal actions, the content of the book hasn't been published by the MSM, but small minority groups, in the UK, have launched campaigns of persecution against them, based on the book.
Judge – Can you name them?
GMC – Yes, we had legal actions against the Madeleine Foundation and the name is Anthony Bennett.
Judge – What relation exists between this group and the publication of the book?
GMC says that AB used parts of the book, interviewed Gonçalo Amaral and invited him on a forum.
Judge – Did the group exist before the publication?
GMC isn't sure about that. But he's able to say that the material they used was based on the allegations of the book. They published pamphlets that said that Madeleine hadn't been abducted. They distributed them to his neighbours and in the whole Leicestershire. This led AB to receive many warnings from his juridical counsels and finally to be sued.
Judge – The twins know the theory of the book?
GMC says they try not to talk upon that subject, but they answer the twins' questions. Sean asked Kate a specific question; he asked why Mr Amaral said that they hid Madeleine. They're aware that the twins make those questions because they hear people tell things.
Judge – What did you do?
GMC mentions that they were very worried about the twins and took a professional advice. They contacted a child psychologist who told them how to handle the issue the best way. He still advises them when they need it. GMC adds that the key-piece of advice is to answer the questions as openly as possible, at their understanding level. Up to now, he says, it has functioned very well, but he's worried by the fact they're going to discover on the Web horrible things about their parents. He's worried by the effect it will have on them.
The Judge asks whether there is a coordination with the school upon that issue.
GMC says that the school provided a big support and is in contact with Kate, but there hasn't been specific incidents.
Judge – Do you know a book by Paulo Cristóvão on the Maddie Case (A Estrela de Madeleine)
GMC says he vaguely heard of it.
Judge – Do you know a book by Manuel Catarino (A Culpa dos McCann?)
GMC says he doesn't know that name.
Judge – Do you know a book by Hernâni Carvalho and Luís Maia (Maddy 129)?
GMC says he knows the name Hernâni Carvalho because his comments in the media on GA's book. But he doesn't know that he wrote a book.
Gonçalo Amaral's new lawyer, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, is the only one who has a question for GMC. He wants to know what caused more distress, the disappearance, the arguido status or the reason for this trial.
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
GMC says that those events happened at different times. A missing child is the hugest pain there is, but the publication of the book sharpened the pain.
There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.
The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
And so it ended

With many thanks to QV and Astro for review

Thank you.

Is there any merit to Gmc's claim that there was no blood found in the apartment ?

Good the judge told him to shut up.

Lioned wrote:Thank you.

Is there any merit to Gmc's claim that there was no blood found in the apartment ?

Good the judge told him to shut up.

Glad to hear the judge told him to put a lid on it. So he only mentioned "blood"; I wonder, if he hadn't been told to shut up, would he have dared to mention "cadaver".

Just re-read Gerry's deposition and noticed he said "FACTS are not true" - oxyMORON.

Gerry McCann wrote: But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Quite right Gerry, the facts can be changed for anyone, I guess you learned that from the BBC.



@3:49

Iris wrote:

Gerry McCann wrote: But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Quite right Gerry, the facts can be changed for anyone, I guess you learned that from the BBC.



@3:49

I'd love to know how many of those McCann supporters still think that the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.  This lady wasn't afraid to speak her mind, I wonder if the McCanns tried to sue her, after all she said as much if not more than Tony Bennett did in his leaflets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0wCsXBj_pU

interested wrote:Just re-read Gerry's deposition and noticed he said "FACTS are not true" - oxyMORON.

  

To be fair, it's possibly a translation or summary probleme. Here is the summary of Joana Morais ( now completed on her blog with Kate and Gerry Mccann):
 
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/palacio-de-justica-8th-of-july-2014.html
 
"Gerald McCann - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge - [interrupts] We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
 
Gerald McCann - But the book states that as a fact!
 
Judge - To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused"

"Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants."

Oh, I'm pleased to read that line!
The Judges decision can only go one way, imo!

chrissie wrote:

interested wrote:Just re-read Gerry's deposition and noticed he said "FACTS are not true" - oxyMORON.

  

Just what I was about to comment on! Gerry's command of the English language is not brilliant. Remember when he said it was OK for people to "purport a theory." Oh yes! I guess Gerry is purporting to be someone who has a command of English!

So, "GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true." someone needs to tell Gerry that a "fact," is something that is held to be true!

so I saw videos showing blood and cadaver dog alterts in the apartment and 5a and the hire car. didn't I. haven't the McCs seen the videos, I think I know they have because didn't Kate say the dog recognised the picture.

I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

kathybelle wrote:I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

'If it weren't for the Home Office protection, this evil pair of liars would have been behind bars long ago!'

imo

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

'If it weren't for the Home Office protection, this evil pair of liars would have been behind bars long ago!'

imo

Quite right Pennylane.  

If the McCanns are ever prosecuted for offences which led to the disappearance of Madeleine, there are going to be a lot of people with very red faces and in my opinion, the person with the reddest face will belong to Andy Redwood, for stating more than once, that the McCanns along with their mates, were not persons of interest to him.

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

'If it weren't for the Home Office protection, this evil pair of liars would have been behind bars long ago!'

imo

Quite right Pennylane.  

If the McCanns are ever prosecuted for offences which led to the disappearance of Madeleine, there are going to be a lot of people with very red faces and in my opinion, the person with the reddest face will belong to Andy Redwood, for stating more than once, that the McCanns along with their mates, were not persons of interest to him.

There would be a lot of red faces for sure, kathybelle xx

For the Home Office, the Met, Mitchell, Gamble, and Hogan Howe this is one nasty bag of worms that keeps on giving! There's far too much information out there for them to succeed in airbrushing the McCanns culpability out of history.  If Redwood was legit, the first place he'd have taken the CSI blood and cadaver dogs would have been straight to Apartment 5A, and he'd have requested the McCanns and friends cooperate with a reconstruction. That's logical, even if the detective is gullible enough to believe the McCanns absurd version of events.  The OG agenda is laid bare by all that they avoid.  

One can only imagine the brainstorming that must go into Redwood's airbrush checklist. 

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

'If it weren't for the Home Office protection, this evil pair of liars would have been behind bars long ago!'

imo

Quite right Pennylane.  

If the McCanns are ever prosecuted for offences which led to the disappearance of Madeleine, there are going to be a lot of people with very red faces and in my opinion, the person with the reddest face will belong to Andy Redwood, for stating more than once, that the McCanns along with their mates, were not persons of interest to him.

There would be a lot of red faces for sure, kathybelle xx

For the Home Office, the Met, Mitchell, Gamble, and Hogan Howe this is one nasty bag of worms that keeps on giving! There's far too much information out there for them to succeed in airbrushing the McCanns culpability out of history.  If Redwood was legit, the first place he'd have taken the CSI blood and cadaver dogs would have been straight to Apartment 5A, and he'd have requested the McCanns and friends cooperate with a reconstruction. That's logical, even if the detective is gullible enough to believe the McCanns absurd version of events.  The OG agenda is laid bare by all that they avoid.  

One can only imagine the brainstorming that must go into Redwood's airbrush checklist. 

Sorry, I do not agree. There was nothing wrong with the original cadaver dog search of apartment 5a, so why would Mr Redwood need to go to that length again? It is about exploring and examining places that were either not searched or that throw up further queries as a result of an original search, not about re-doing everything that was originally done. I think what it may show is that SY are not contesting the original searches of 5a but that they wish to branch out to other premises that have been flagged up as not searched/worthy of further exploration.

LJC wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I'd love to know what Goncalo Amaral was thinking, as he watched the McCanns make fools of themselves.

'If it weren't for the Home Office protection, this evil pair of liars would have been behind bars long ago!'

imo

Quite right Pennylane.  

If the McCanns are ever prosecuted for offences which led to the disappearance of Madeleine, there are going to be a lot of people with very red faces and in my opinion, the person with the reddest face will belong to Andy Redwood, for stating more than once, that the McCanns along with their mates, were not persons of interest to him.

There would be a lot of red faces for sure, kathybelle xx

For the Home Office, the Met, Mitchell, Gamble, and Hogan Howe this is one nasty bag of worms that keeps on giving! There's far too much information out there for them to succeed in airbrushing the McCanns culpability out of history.  If Redwood was legit, the first place he'd have taken the CSI blood and cadaver dogs would have been straight to Apartment 5A, and he'd have requested the McCanns and friends cooperate with a reconstruction. That's logical, even if the detective is gullible enough to believe the McCanns absurd version of events.  The OG agenda is laid bare by all that they avoid.  

One can only imagine the brainstorming that must go into Redwood's airbrush checklist. 

Sorry, I do not agree.  There was nothing wrong with the original cadaver dog search of apartment 5a, so why would Mr Redwood need to go to that length again?  It is about exploring and examining places that were either not searched or that throw up further queries as a result of an original search, not about re-doing everything that was originally done.  I think what it may show is that SY are not contesting the original searches of 5a but that they wish to branch out to other premises that have been flagged up as not searched/worthy of further exploration.

I admire your faith in the integrity of SY but it's not something I share. A new review should start at the beginning and work from there, which means back at 5A, more dogs, harsh questioning of the main players and spread out from there. As Deadwood has publicly claimed that the dastardly duo and their pals are not in the equation there's only one way I can see this going, exonerate them and find a patsy.

But if Mr Redwood took the dogs and their handlers back to 5A, that would be tantamount to saying that he did not trust Mr Grime's work and his findings.
And given that the utilisation of the dogs is expensive, why duplicate tasks which have already been done, given that the original information is already 'in the bag'?

almostgothic wrote:But if Mr Redwood took the dogs and their handlers back to 5A, that would be tantamount to saying that he did not trust Mr Grime's work and his findings.
And given that the utilisation of the dogs is expensive, why duplicate tasks which have already been done, given that the original information is already 'in the bag'?

Well Mr Redwood is certainly giving the impression that he has no faith in Eddie and Keela's indications. I thought the idea was to start afresh, at the beginning and go through the whole thing again, not just pick and choose the bits that he deems relevant. How can he blatantly stand in front of the cameras and say the things he does and exonerate the parents/tapas crew of any involvement. Obviously there are some dogs he has faith in if he's bringing them across from Wales (I think that's where they're based) but to me the whole idea of the review was to start from scratch, blame the sardine munchers for not being thorough enough and in the process head us any which way but towards the parents.

I tend to agree. it was Sir Hogan-Howe's thoughts that they would bring in better dogs that caused me to think oh so they don't think Eddie and Keela were good enough. but they were good enough to give indications of blood and cadaver in the apartment 5a, on clothes of Kate and a childs top and the hire car. so what wasn't good about that, that they needed "better dogs".

almostgothic wrote:But if Mr Redwood took the dogs and their handlers back to 5A, that would be tantamount to saying that he did not trust Mr Grime's work and his findings.
And given that the utilisation of the dogs is expensive, why duplicate tasks which have already been done, given that the original information is already 'in the bag'?

Spot on. Re-investigations do not mean re-doing everything that was done; it means a fresh look at certain elements of the investigation that still have question marks hanging over them. No need at all to question the dogs and I am sure that SY have complete faith in Mr Grimes and his dogs; well I am certain they do for they appear not to be contesting this information at all. They are going with what they have got that they are content with and casting the net wider from there - which is what all re-investigations do.

I was speaking to a police officer friend, of a friend, he said that Operation Grange, have made a complete 'pigs ear' of this investigation. He said Redwood should never have spoken to the media about who were and weren't persons of interest to Operation Grange.

He said if Operation Grange were serious about wanting the people responsible for Madeleine's disappearance to be brought to justice, the McCanns should have been the first people to be persons of interest to them, because they were the last people to see Madeleine alive.

He then went on to say that because of the way Operation Grange has conducted this investigation, he doesn't believe that the persons responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, will ever be brought to justice. I said to him that the fact the McCanns were not persons of interest to Redwood, did this mean they were being protected? He said he believed they were, I asked him why, and he wouldn't say.

I told him I thought they were being protected and I told him why I thought they were being protected. I asked him if thought the same way as I did, but he still wouldn't say.

Reading between the lines, I think he thinks the same way as I do.

kathybelle wrote:I was speaking to a police officer friend, of a friend, he said that Operation Grange, have made a complete 'pigs ear' of this investigation. He said Redwood should never have spoken to the media about who were and weren't persons of interest to Operation Grange.

He said if Operation Grange were serious about wanting the people responsible for  Madeleine's disappearance to be brought to justice, the McCanns should have been the first people to be persons of interest to them, because they were the last people to see Madeleine alive.

He then went on to say that because of the way Operation Grange has conducted this investigation, he doesn't believe that the persons responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, will ever be brought to justice. I said to him that the fact the McCanns were not persons of interest to Redwood, did this mean they were being protected? He said he believed they were, I asked him why, and he wouldn't say.

I told him I thought they were being protected and I told him why I thought they were being protected. I asked him if thought the same way as I did, but he still wouldn't say.

Reading between the lines, I think he thinks the same way as I do.

That's what I keep banging on about. A fresh review cannot begin by stating the McCanns aren't persons of interest. The fact that Deadwood didn't begin at the beginning and reinvestigate where the first dogs indicated doesn't mean he's showing faith in Eddy and Keela and Mr Grimes and means he's putting a line under what they discovered and and discarding it to lead things in another direction entirely. I know lots of people think he's playing a clever game and lulling the McC's into a false sense of security but I really don't think he's that clever.

If Mr Redwood wanted to protect the McCanns, its highly unlikely that he would make it so obvious.

No re-investigation in the world starts with a declaration of who is a person of interest. Mr Redwood was being pushed and asked a question unfairly at the beginning in my opinion and of course he could only answer the way he did. A no comment answer would have given a wrong impression as well with many thinking, ah perhaps the McCanns are suspects, so he had no choice.

Re-investigations are what they are, fresh eyes and open minds, and everybody is ruled out until eventually somebody is ruled in.

As for those of us who have spoken to a police officer about it; do you know what, a great many of us have, me included (I'm bloody surrounded by them) and believe me none of them I have spoken to think this is an easy investigation and they are right. Its about as complex as they come is the truth of it.

dazedandconfused wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I was speaking to a police officer friend, of a friend, he said that Operation Grange, have made a complete 'pigs ear' of this investigation. He said Redwood should never have spoken to the media about who were and weren't persons of interest to Operation Grange.

He said if Operation Grange were serious about wanting the people responsible for  Madeleine's disappearance to be brought to justice, the McCanns should have been the first people to be persons of interest to them, because they were the last people to see Madeleine alive.

He then went on to say that because of the way Operation Grange has conducted this investigation, he doesn't believe that the persons responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, will ever be brought to justice. I said to him that the fact the McCanns were not persons of interest to Redwood, did this mean they were being protected? He said he believed they were, I asked him why, and he wouldn't say.

I told him I thought they were being protected and I told him why I thought they were being protected. I asked him if thought the same way as I did, but he still wouldn't say.

Reading between the lines, I think he thinks the same way as I do.

That's what I keep banging on about.  A fresh review cannot begin by stating the McCanns aren't persons of interest.  The fact that Deadwood didn't begin at the beginning and reinvestigate where the first dogs indicated doesn't mean he's showing faith in Eddy and Keela and Mr Grimes and means he's putting a line under what they discovered and and discarding it to lead things in another direction entirely.  I know lots of people think he's playing a clever game and lulling the McC's into a false sense of security but I really don't think he's that clever.

Operation Grange walks like a duck and quacks like a duck!