Sky Live Day 3 - 14/01/10

Anyone think it's at all feasible that Kate doesn't know..McCann was last person to see Maddie and he was probably seen carrying her by the Smiths.Maybe McCann is also deceiving his wife.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:: Ms Duarte, the McCanns' top lawyer, then asks how Mr da Silva can say Mr Amaral's book was based on the case, if he hasn't read the file.

Actually, that is not an unreasonable question. I hope he has got a good answer.

The files are readily available for all and sundry to read on t'internet.

Isabel Duarte:
Why didn't you include the public attorney's verdict that the conclusions arrived at by the investigators were incorrect?

Now we know what the question about the colour of the file cover was about

Oh, shit.

Mr da Sliva: Because I was telling a story.

This is not good.

jondipaolo: Mr da Sliva: Because I was telling a story.

fedrules wrote:Anyone think it's at all feasible that Kate doesn't know..McCann was last person to see Maddie and he was probably seen carrying her by the Smiths.Maybe McCann is also deceiving his wife.

I think she knows that Gerry had Madeleine kidnapped /trafficked but she is terrified for Maddie's welfare and also terrified she failed to protect her and if she blags to the police will lose her twins as well. She does not wish to rile Gerry because she grimly hangs onto his promise he might get Maddie back for her if she behaves. That is how he keeps her under, just a theory of course but it clearly fits with UK agencies.

viv wrote:
This so called f off seems to have been invented by Rosiepops and The Sun, Rosie insists this can be witnessed on an East Midlands BBC video but I listened, nope just an interview with Gerry, big surprise Rosie McPotty is a liar.

No Rosie is correct, it was on East Midlands BBC TV, and the link was provided here on this forum.

Dr Amaral was asked by the idiot BBC journalist if he thought the trial and his actions where hurting the McCann's. He replies **** the McCann's.

The actual word was bleeped out, so he may very well have said sod the McCann's, but I suspect that the BBC's reporting was correct. It is claimed that Amaral may sarcastically have said "Fora Los McCann's" which I think means good luck. Either way, it made me laugh

The Famous Grouse wrote:Oh, shit.

Mr da Sliva: Because I was telling a story.

This is not good.

oh oh maybe mistranslated as he was telling a lie?

The Famous Grouse wrote:Oh, shit.

Mr da Sliva: Because I was telling a story.

This is not good.

O dear ............

ann_chovey wrote:jondipaolo: Mr da Sliva: Because I was telling a story.

Oh dear, a documentary should not be a story but facts.

Mr da Silva has finished giving evidence and left the courtroom.

Mr da Silva has finished giving evidence and left the courtroom.

Well so what, if my life had been devastated like his life has by that pair of lying scum, I would be saying a LOT more than just f**k the McCanns.

i dont like this now......

carlymichelle wrote:Mr da Silva has finished giving evidence and left the courtroom.

Probably just as well!

I think possibly something may have got lost in translation on that last reply

Harvesmom wrote:I think possibly something may have got lost in translation on that last reply

maybe he meant because GA was telling the truth?

No wonder Goncalo walked out, this is going pear shaped.

Proceedings are breaking up for lunch.

With respect Viv. Where would your theory leave the sniffer dog alerts to cadaver scent and blood ? A dead child would be of no interest to child traffickers.

carlymichelle wrote:

Harvesmom wrote:I think possibly something may have got lost in translation on that last reply

maybe he meant because GA was telling the truth?

Maybe he meant it wasnt meant to be a blow by blow account of the whole case, but their intepretation of the parents involvement.

fedrules wrote:Anyone think it's at all feasible that Kate doesn't know..McCann was last person to see Maddie and he was probably seen carrying her by the Smiths.Maybe McCann is also deceiving his wife.

Interesting point Fed.

Thats what I dont understand how the whole group dont suspect each other...could Kate have opened the door and pushed M into the street, could any of the Tapas crew have snook in on their checks and done something with her, could Gerry have had enough. Why the solidarity when anyone of them could have been lying? Doesnt make sense.

Christine wrote:Oh dear, a documentary should not be a story but facts.

Its possible to produce an entertaining story thats based on fact.

I think he was a reasonable witness, he was open and honest enough to admit that his company had a commercial adgenda, and that profit was a motive, and that they needed to produce something that people watching it would find interesting and entertaining.

He didnt embelish the story, it was based on the book and police files, and that they called for further investigation.

Isabelle's line of questioning for any non police witnesses was bound to take this line that they where not in possession of the facts, or to try to smear GA that he'd leaked confidential info

Have I understood this correctly? There's a Portuguese guy in the courtroom who has to listen to what is being said in Portuguese, translate it instantaneously into English and transmit it by Twitter. I should have thought quite a lot gets 'lost in translation'?