Sky Live Day 3 - 14/01/10

I place as much reliance on the cadaver scent and blood (which did not match Madeleine's) as the prosecutor does. 50 50 dead or alive, it is not reasonable to say with any degree of certainty.

Christine wrote:

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

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

Surely a documentary has to have a narrative - ie a story - so that people can follow it.

Photon wrote:

MissBlonde wrote:

suzyone wrote:haha

As I expected. Gerry has left so the fragrant Kate can be left off giving evidence.....

Yip, as soon as he went I knew she wouldn't take the stand. Galling that they're allowed to say what they will and won't do though.

Wonderful character reference though - isn't it!! First they agree to - and then they don't.

Why change a habbit of a lifetime G & K!! yes we will take a lie detector test, no we want, yes we will do a reconstruction, no we want!

WE WILL GIVE EVIDENCE, NO WE WANT!!!

Regarding the TV production guy's testimony: He meant telling a story in the loosest sense. All film and documentary makers talk about telling "the story". Don't take it so literally people! Its TV speak. I've written and seen plenty of synopsis where they start "this film tells the story of... " and goes on to discuss something utterly factual, say "man's efforts to reach the moon" or "...how the British Empire fell". That kind of thing.

Reading too much into it I think. Also the fact it was a commercial decision to make the documentary. TV is a business. Nothing is made without commercial decisions being made. With the best will in the world, you have to have money to make a programme and you have to recoup your budget costs. Its how tv works. Recouping means sales from distribution and marketing. Simple as.

The judge will be well aware of all these things. And if they're not, I'd be amazed.

buildersbum wrote:

Photon wrote:

MissBlonde wrote:

suzyone wrote:haha

As I expected. Gerry has left so the fragrant Kate can be left off giving evidence.....

Yip, as soon as he went I knew she wouldn't take the stand. Galling that they're allowed to say what they will and won't do though.

Wonderful character reference though - isn't it!! First they agree to - and then they don't.

Why change a habbit of a lifetime G & K!! yes we will take a lie detector test, no we want, yes we will do a reconstruction, no we want!

WE WILL GIVE EVIDENCE, NO WE WANT!!![/quote]



I've no idea whether she actually will take the stand - it was just a quick line on the radio news this morning on the school run - saying it is now thought that she won't. Although I do doubt it, they never do what they say they're going to do, and somehow they always get away with it!?!

T4two wrote: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'?

This is how I understand it And i know from reading Portugese posters on here that sometimes pt words do not easily translate in english

A story can also be a true one, at first blush it sounds bad, but that word is often used to detail someone's life and this is as much about Goncalo and his struggle for justice.

roseland69 wrote:Regarding the TV production guy's testimony: He meant telling a story in the loosest sense. All film and documentary makers talk about telling "the story". Don't take it so literally people! Its TV speak. I've written and seen plenty of synopsis where they start "this film tells the story of... " and goes on to discuss something utterly factual, say "man's efforts to reach the moon" or "...how the British Empire fell". That kind of thing.

Reading too much into it I think. Also the fact it was a commercial decision to make the documentary. TV is a business. Nothing is made without commercial decisions being made. With the best will in the world, you have to have money to make a programme and you have to recoup your budget costs. Its how tv works. Recouping means sales from distribution and marketing. Simple as.

The judge will be well aware of all these things. And if they're not, I'd be amazed.

I agree and it is line with what i was about to post, I dont see these questions as having much relevence to the case. After all the book is mainly about Amarals life at the time so he was telling his story as well and the judge already knows that.

I think he was a good witness.
Of course everyone knows that the company would not have made a docu unless they were to make money out of it! They are a BUSINESS! Not a charity
And of course he has to create a film of a 'story' - that's what it's all about. The story is based on facts. Story as in the tale told by the book (in this case a tale based on facts)

He said he did not embellish it with things not told in the book.

Had he said otherwise (eg pretended he did it as a favour) then his statement would have lacked credibility

Just as well she does'nt take the stand, with all those ums errs and deep sighs we could still be here a week from now still listening to her statement.

viv wrote:A story can also be a true one, at first blush it sounds bad, but that word is often used to detail someone's life and this is as much about Goncalo and his struggle for justice.

Exactly.

Ultimately, I suppose it's how the evidence came across to the judge and how she takes it that matters. It's handy to have a general guide to proceedings though

Well we all gave it our "twopennuth" but I am sure that is nowhere near enough for Kate and Gerry McScam !

vengefulangel wrote:

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.

fed and vengeful, I'm thinking whatever happened it was around bathtime 3rd May. Gerry goes to play yet more tennis, then sends Payne to check up on Kate, perhaps she was in a mood at being left with all 3 kids, and went for a quick jog or something and Madeleine fell down the steps....'Mummy where are you going'? type scenario. They all know what a barsteward GM is so are standing by KM primarily...suffered enough will lose the twins etc.

Harvesmom wrote:

T4two wrote: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'?

This is how I understand it And i know from reading Portugese posters on here that sometimes pt words do not easily translate in english

Thanks Harvesmom. I'm a professional translator from German into English but I would have huge difficulty if I had to interpret and twitter simultaneously. IMO using the facility we have to get an overall impression of what is happening is ok but examining each word that is being transmitted is potentially misleading because it is not necessarily conveying the meaning accurately. Before anyone shoots me down - I think he's doing a great job and I do appreciate it.

He obviously speaks fluent English and is only translating about one sentence in two minutes. Actually he works
for SkyLive and must put the same info on Twitter simultaneously.

ann sometimes i wonder if it truly was a accident and maddie had a near drowning/drowning accident while kate was bathing them hence the talk of them knowing how to do a trach/ CPR ec even near drowning kids die... when me and my twin were almost 3 my middle brother was born im sure my mum found us hard too at bath time...

ann_chovey wrote:

vengefulangel wrote:

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.

fed and vengeful, I'm thinking whatever happened it was around bathtime 3rd May. Gerry goes to play yet more tennis, then sends Payne to check up on Kate, perhaps she was in a mood at being left with all 3 kids, and went for a quick jog or something and Madeleine fell down the steps....'Mummy where are you going'? type scenario. They all know what a barsteward GM is so are standing by KM primarily...suffered enough will lose the twins etc.

I agree they all know what happened otherwise they would be suspicious of each other for sure. And definitely am of the same opinion that it happened earlier in the day. Unless they stay together because the Gaspars were on the right on the right track ?

Speaking and thinking in a language, and translating it to another language, are two completely different skills. They utilise different parts of the brain. Jon di Paolo is doing a sterling job for which I think we should ALL be grateful!

Ann Chovey, but if Maddie was already dead then, why would they let other people do a check? They might have noticed that she wasn't in her bed..unless they told their friends just to listen at the door, but, in that case, Oldfield disobeyed..

viv wrote:I place as much reliance on the cadaver scent and blood (which did not match Madeleine's) as the prosecutor does. 50 50 dead or alive, it is not reasonable to say with any degree of certainty.

So why are you a fan of GA then if there is an equal chance of MM being alive????? If she has been taken by child abductors or a nice family who couldnt conceive but could pay for a lovely little child, why are you scathing of the Mccanns???????

Beattie wrote:He obviously speaks fluent English and is only translating about one sentence in two minutes. Actually he works
for SkyLive and must put the same info on Twitter simultaneously.

IMO one shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of conveying the true meaning of what is said in a sentence even 'only' translating every two minutes. Unfortunately people often do.

carlymichelle wrote:ann sometimes i wonder if it truly was a accident and maddie had a near drowning/drowning accident while kate was bathing them hence the talk of them knowing how to do a trach/ CPR ec even near drowning kids die... when me and my twin were almost 3 my middle brother was born im sure my mum found us hard too at bath time...

'
Hey Carly, I'm also a twin.

fedrules wrote:Ann Chovey, but if Maddie was already dead then, why would they let other people do a check? They might have noticed that she wasn't in her bed..unless they told their friends just to listen at the door, but, in that case, Oldfield disobeyed..

Really ? I don't see any real evidence that Oldfield clapped eyes on any of the McCann children that night.

The Famous Grouse wrote:Speaking and thinking in a language, and translating it to another language, are two completely different skills. They utilise different parts of the brain. Jon di Paolo is doing a sterling job for which I think we should ALL be grateful!

I certainly am and thank Sky for arranging this as well as jon. I was referring to an earlier post from T4two.