For live tweets on the Madeleine McCann case from the Portuguese courtroom today

Duatre has put a rope round her own neck.

The liars are her clients, over and over again.

POPPY1 wrote:Has Duarte committed libel herself ?

Not a good idea to call a senior police officer a liar!

steve1295 wrote:ANTONETTE, your onny a langerrrr hehehe jus jokin.

nah I'm a Dub. They won't let me leave Cork though

POPPY1 wrote:Has Duarte committed libel herself ?

Lawyers in court are ussually exempt, as I believe are witness's under oath and parlimentarians in the house of commons.

bootsy wrote:Now she's saying that Paiva has lied during these proceedings?I hope he sue's her,silly cow.God my blood pressure is creeping up

Its priveleged, meaning you can say a number of things that are in your opinion as long as you are not lying or deliberately misleading the court. If you remember Al Fayed called the royal family nazis and thought they murdered his son, he could do so because it was his opinion. Its spin on behalf of her client, paid for with blood money.

Feel same way Bootsy, getting well agitated here too.

vengefulangel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Duarte says Paiva has lied to the court during these proceedings. She says he has been inconsistent about the accuracy of the sniffer dogs.

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say! Paiva is not an expert witness regarding the capability (or not) of the dogs ability. To accuse another of giving false testimony in this instance is very poor professional practice imho.

IMO, this tactic shows how desperate the prosecution is. The holes are definitely beginning to show in their case. I agree that this is a very risky strategy claiming that one of the witnesses lied under oath.

vengefulangel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Duarte is saying Paiva received reports from across Europe with new info about Madeleine, but he still kept the case shelved.

Seriously the woman is a lunatic. Paiva didnt do anything because he knew MM was dead. Plus if it was that important it was a matter for their highly professional (snort!!) PI's to follow up, isnt that why they wanted the case files....

She is more than lunatic because if she knew how things work, she would know Paiva alone doesn't have the capability of ignoring sightings or any other clue. She's trying to make her case but I hope the Judge doesn't "eat" this c.rap.

Any ideas whats happend to Hanna has she dozed off

hannahtp Court proceedings have finished. The ruling on the ban is to be delivered on the 18th of February at 1030.

Decision: 10.30 on the 18th http://twitpic.com/12f5cp
less than 20 seconds ago from Echofon

Sky announced thirty minutes ago they would be discussing the case "shortly". Nuffin. Probably trying to drag Kate "every mother's heart must go out to them" Burley out from under her desk.

AnnaEsse wrote:Whether Paiva has been inconsistent or not does not matter. What matters is that Dr Amaral has written his book based on the investigation and what the investigators were examining.

AnnaEsse

Correct me if I"m wrong, but is Duarte saying the Portugese Police withheld information from the Files which
could have been investigated........how does she know?

Also, couldn"t Amaral"s Lawyer , who apparently hasn"t said anything so far, demand that the English Police who worked in Portugal give evidence , Stuart Prior for example, before the Judge makes her decision?

The RATS have been cornered and quite clearly, they will fight tooth and claw.

For the MCCSCUM the truth is irrelevant,all they want is to continue to milk the cash cow.

@hannahtp: So, as many had predicted, there is to be no ruling on the book ban today. The judge will consider her verdict.

MissGivings wrote:Decision: 10.30 on the 18th http://twitpic.com/12f5cp
less than 20 seconds ago from Echofon

So if the judge rules in favour of Amaral does that mean she is next to be sued by the mccanns

AnnaEsse wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:Has Duarte committed libel herself ?

Not a good idea to call a senior police officer a liar!

The only way for the McCann's to get out of this is to discredit ALL the witnesses of Amaral.
In the last court session Isabel Duarte accused chief inspector Tavares de Almeida of being involved in a case of police torture.
The judge told her to SFU and rightly so as the incident never saw the inside of a court room.
The lawyer Isabel Duarte is forgetting the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Latest updates:

17.20

Duarte said that during the Madeleine investigation Paiva stated the sniffer dogs had failed at least once.


17.24

It was an emotional performance from the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte. She said at the start that she was very attached to this case.

Laffin Assasin wrote:http://twitpic.com/12f5cp

OOoops if that is the inside of the Court the person taking it is in contempt of court. Seriously it sounds a bit OTT but if its like the english courts you can go to prison for this! Can anyone warn Echo?

ann_chovey wrote:

lea wrote:

kitti wrote:Has everyone gone for tiffin?

never heard of that before kitti,
whats tiffin?

I'll answer for kitti.....'tiffin' is a tea break/snack, term originates from British army in India. My grandad used to say it. There was also a choc. bar with the name in the sixties.

thanks for your answer ann chovey,
just catching up,ive been away all afternoon,
Amarals side has done a fine job in saying how it really is,
ive just two more pages to read,

Perhaps the judge needs the next eight days to read the case files and wake up and smell the

i love antoinettes comment about them suing the judge if she finds amaral in her favour.....fabulous stuff

vengefulangel wrote:

Laffin Assasin wrote:http://twitpic.com/12f5cp

OOoops if that is the inside of the Court the person taking it is in contempt of court.

Not if its a British journalist already on its way to Britain.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100210/world/britain_portugal_missing_crime

Harrycichy McCanns back in court to fight book ban - Yahoo! Canada News: http://bit.ly/beu3Gs via @addthis

Antoinette wrote:

MissGivings wrote:Decision: 10.30 on the 18th http://twitpic.com/12f5cp
less than 20 seconds ago from Echofon

So if the judge rules in favour of Amaral does that mean she is next to be sued by the mccanns

And next to be called a liar. How they are getting away with this beats me.