Sky Live Day 1 - 12/01/10

ignore above - its up and runnning on sky now
gerald stating - no evidence of death......we accept existence of dogs etc....but, no evidence of death bla bla - he's a bloody pain

does anyone have the nunes testimony from yesterday so i can add it to my day 1 log please and thanks in advance

Not verbatim but try Joana Morais' blog for the Nunes testimony. Best I have seen.

do you have a link for it please and thanks?

much appreciated many thanks xx

Thank you Hobnob for the Transcript x

[
The prosecution, through the McCann couple's lawyer, Isabel Duarte, confronted the witnesses with alleged discrepancies in the book, like a walk during which an Irish couple reported seeing a man carrying a child in his arms, moving towards the beach, in the day of the disappearance.

"The book is full of inferences and deductions", said Isabel Duarte, at the end of the hearing, which continues on Wednesday with the questioning of defense witnesses.

Amaral claims that the person seen by the Smiths was GM cos smithy says so. Of course, he didn't actually recognise GM until he spotted Gm carrying the child off the plane and low and behold - he carried the child in the same way as the abductor. Funny that!

Anway, Amaral claims it must have been Gm and that is why they wanted the reconstruction. He believes JT purposefully said she spotted the kidnapper going towards Murats home in order to detract attention from GM.

What a load of bollox!

Garth wrote:[
The prosecution, through the McCann couple's lawyer, Isabel Duarte, confronted the witnesses with alleged discrepancies in the book, like a walk during which an Irish couple reported seeing a man carrying a child in his arms, moving towards the beach, in the day of the disappearance.

"The book is full of inferences and deductions", said Isabel Duarte, at the end of the hearing, which continues on Wednesday with the questioning of defense witnesses.

Amaral claims that the person seen by the Smiths was GM cos smithy says so. Of course, he didn't actually recognise GM until he spotted Gm carrying the child off the plane and low and behold - he carried the child in the same way as the abductor. Funny that!

Anway, Amaral claims it must have been Gm and that is why they wanted the reconstruction. He believes JT purposefully said she spotted the kidnapper going towards Murats home in order to detract attention from GM.

What a load of bollox!

Garth, what part of that is bollox? What Isabel Duarte said or what what you say Amaral says in his book?

The bit about JT's sighting to detract from GM. The point is, there are witnesses who testify he was at the table at the time of the Smith sighting.

Are those independent witnesses or Tapazniks 7 ?

Garth wrote:The bit about JT's sighting to detract from GM. The point is, there are witnesses who testify he was at the table at the time of the Smith sighting.

Just so that we can get the point, Garth, can you tell us exactly who those witnesses are please and where they have "testified". Could they be the ones who had to consult their lawyers about attending a reconstruction and then decided they did not wish to erm "testify" in that particular way before the police, they only wanted to do it for the telly

Garth wrote:The bit about JT's sighting to detract from GM. The point is, there are witnesses who testify he was at the table at the time of the Smith sighting.

That is not entirely accurate. The sightings of GM at the table were inconsistent, especially the timings. There would never have been any investigation into this aspect (Smith was asked to return to make a formal statement) if the PJ had evidence that made the sighting of GM impossible.

As importantly, potential supporting evidence here is the fact that JT's statement came so late, and then changed a number of times (in fact, becoming more accurate, less like GM). Added to that is the apparently under-investigated issue of why JT's sighting was apparently noted by GM and one other (forget who it was) on the coloring book cover before JT had even mentioned it.

It is hard to believe that, whatever the truth of that sighting, that JT was not intentionally trying to re-describe the abductor to be less like GM when considering the original image and the later ones.

The thing to consider here, is that the elements that really deserve attention are the random, un-plannable ones. The Tapas group may have ulterior motives, other reasons for saying things. So might the McCanns. But there is no reason for any independent witness to say something for no reason, especially when it came relatively soon after the event, and so should be taken seriously whether it supports or opposes the McCann's theory. Therefore, the Smith's and the Gasper's evidence, for example, should certainly be taken seriously.

I think that's a very good point DavidA. Why would a whole family invent a sighting and why would the Gasper's make up a scene like the one involving the Paynes. It must have taken a lot of soul searching to dare to go ahead with such a disturbing tale...