Kates diary leaked

Eileen !! You're here .. :cheers: :cheers:

Just trying to catch up on the blogs .. and I get lost in here & forget where I saw what .. and there you are :D

Lisa-UK joined, but I haven't seen anything from her yet .. and Maria too.

Now we just need James & a few others .. and the Sky blog will be entirely Anti's .. and I imagine they will bore themselves silly with no-one to bang against .. like with like.

Your comments on the vast quantities of disparate 'stories' and 'evidence' are spot on. The irony is that many of these stories contradict each other -- ie if one were to be true several others would have to be discarded. But it's far more effective for the PJ's purposes to let all the different stories chase each other around the media, giving the superficial effect of lots of damning evidence! They rely on relatively few people bothering to do even a superficial analysis!

dianeh wrote:He must sue in Portugal. And if in Portugal libel has not been taken seriously,the it is even more doubtful that such an action would succeed. It is unlikely that a witness can be sued for giving evidence, even if mistaken, unless it can be proven that they deliberately lied and were malicious, and that is a criminal prosecution, not a civil one.

Looks like Mr Murat wont holding on to the money he received from the British papers for long, it will be going to pay court costs in the next round. He will loose if he tries to sue the Tapas members, he may do alright against the Portuguese press though.

I wonder if it would be lucrative for him to sue the Portuguese press? If Portugal do not look at libel as being much of an offence, they are not likely to award him very much in the way of damages and that is if he won, which in Portugal has got to be open to question.

I think he is being very badly advised, it seems that he has won this money and it is now being spent for him, very strange state of affairs.

May wrote:People on other sites are digging the dirt on Kate because of her leaked diary entries, asking why she should be filling in a diary at such a time. Sorry, but I seem to remember reading that she was advised to keep a diary as it would be therapeutic. Is Claire on tonight? I have struggled and struggled to join this forum and have finally made it. Claire, I am Eileen, Katzer and now may!!!!!!!! Hehehehe it is the only way I could join by changing my name, there is nothing sinister in it. Happy to be here at last! Eileen

And a BIG to the forum, hope to read many of your posts.

With regard to Kate's diaries, I too remember reading that she was advised by a psychologist to keep a diary so she could show Madeleine what they had been doing to find her when she came home and also for her own sake, as writing down your thoughts and feelings can be very cathartic.

It seems these people that queue up to tear this couple apart no matter what they do are actually beyond help now, they are too far gone and they actually look forward to logging on their hate blogs and sites and then spewing out their venomous untrue comments towards this couple.
I just wonder if one day in the future they will feel great shame in what they have written and said and of the pain they have caused to two *innocent* grieving people. One day their families will probably come across what they have written and if these people are only somewhat half human, they are going to be shocked and appalled when they view what their relatives have written. Truly shameful, I hope they feel acutely embarrassed at their disgusting and often depraved behaviour.

Actually I thought it was one of Kate's aunts who suggested keeping the diary, so as to have something to show Madeleine how hard they looked for her, when she is eventually found?

I think it was a bit of both Vee, I do know that they were advised by these people, I think there was a male and female team, but you are right, you jogged my memory and I do also remember reading something about a relative suggesting this.

What is striking however is that this family were going through absolute hell on earth and the PJ did not even give them a family liaison officer, the McCann's were just left to their own devices and left to handle all the press themselves, is it any wonder they had to get Clarence Mitchell? Someone who knows media and can handle the pressure of it? Especially because of how big this story got and how quickly.

Did you realise that the PJ did NOT have to evoke the secrecy laws in this case?

I hope if God forbid this happens again in Portugal, that the PJ and judiciary have learned how badly these secrecy laws impinge on the smooth running of an investigation and any ultimate successful conclusion of any other case? Of course this will mean changing their attitudes towards giving details of anyone they want to question and also issuing photos of the missing child and other details. The Portuguese methods need a complete over haul.

I thought it was advice from a relative too, I seem to think it was Philomena, but whoever it was, it was sound advice for many reasons. The leaking of any entries in Kates diary, is disgraceful, these are a grieving parents private thoughts and emotions and should have remained as such.

I cannot believe people are even questioning why Kate made a diary, why not ? what has it got to do with anyone else. I bet the same people never questioned Lardy Boy writing his book. Bunch of hypocrites, these people that constantly mock the McCanns make me sick, I'm so glad Kate dismisses them with the contempt they deserve.

I have changed my mind on the libel thing in Portugal after reading your post on Murat and reading Paulo Reis article. I thought that what had preciously been said about Murat was mild and that because libel is not taken seriously in Portugal that he even if he won, he wouldnt get many damages. But now,I think he should sue (the press and blogs that is, not the witnesses he should just save his money). What has been said about him in that article is as bad as the stuff being written about the McCanns. I firmly believe that defamation must be punished severely.

I also would like to re-iterate that because libel is not taken seriously (thanks for your input on this Maria) the press and publishers do not guard against it. So it is likely going to be easy to win. However, one wonders at the extent of damages that will be awarded, if Portugal doesnt consider a person's reputation as important, with the possible exception of a 'retired' PJ detective who seems to want to 'save' his reputation.

I understand what you are saying Diane, but he is entering a minefield here. This stuff was written in the Portuguese press in the first instance and I think it was reproduced in some of the British press and I agree if it is not true it is sick and defamatory and of course he has every right to sue. As far as I know re the British press this was printed in I think two of them and was never repeated and I never read it but I was aware that some allegations had been made, yet in the Portuguese press where it originated from I think it appeared quite a lot there, so why isn't he suing the Portuguese press too? Maybe he will, who knows. If he sues the Portuguese press he will probably find he will have to appear in court and then things could get very messy indeed, because obviously the Portuguese press would have their lawyers present.
What is now puzzling me quite a lot is why did Amaral write it in his book and why did Paulo Reis publish it on his blog?
And surely if he is suing everyone who published this story (quite rightly) then why isn't he suing the person who made the original allegation? If he takes these people to court, he risks this person being subpoenaed to appear in court, this is where I think it will all get very messy. (I am not talking about the general stuff that Reis wrote)

We will not even risk having the link to it on here!

I think it may still be early days. The arguido status has only just been lifted. We may be seeing lots of libel activity once the victims and their lawyers have all their ducks in a row. This could take time as there are so many facets to the matter and so many people who could potentially be sued. We don't know yet who they will be.

As an old pal of ours kept saying 'Slowly slowly catchee monkey'!

I see a minefield of writs all over the place......!!!!!

please go to www.mccannfiles.com

where you under LATEST heading will see notes on Kate's diary recommended by a psychiatrist, and also auntie Phil encouraged it so Madeleine could see how hard they tried.......

It outlines tension between Kate and Susan Healy and other things I do not want to publish here.

definitely worth a read..........

Re your link Jane, to the Mccann files.

I think what we have to remember here is that the article was in the Correiro da Manure(?spelling!!!) Not only that but it has been translated, and as we know, what is the title of that film? Oh yes, 'Lost in Translation' comes to mind.

IMO the author of this article has cleverly used the word 'again' to suit his/her slant on the subject. The whole article is based on someone's interpretation of what Kate wrote, without even knowing Kate McCann. I'm sure if I was to write the article I could give an entirely different interpretation of events. Of course there were tensions, why wouldn't there be? Referring to tensions with Kate's mother appears to be a blatant attempt to show constant friction between the two. Who knows the truth of this? What significance if any if it is true? IMO the tension shown is one of frustration on the part of Kate in trying to please everyone all of the time whilst dealing with the trauma of her eldest child being abducted.

I agree Helen.

I recall Susan Healy saying on our television news how 'surprised' she was that they left the 3 children alone.

My point was mainly that it is 'out there' to be openly read - whatever the source, - and that the sources of such material are already being looked at closely by McCanns' lawyers as mentioned in the news today also. That is why I commented all the writs would now be like a rash all over the place. I find a lot of information on that site under all the various headings.

I only directed people to have a look. Then they make up their own minds on it. One or two points in the articles were questionned here.

'Latest news' on Jane's link mentions that Amaral is going to be a columnist on Correia de Manure. So we can look forward to some interesting, reliable articles then :duh: Once he's run out of things to say about the McCanns, what will he write about?
'The Imaginative Interpretation of Forensic Evidence'? 'Guiding Cadaver Dogs'? 'Preserving a Crime Scene: Domestic Tips'? And finally 'Fighting Fat: a luncher's tale'.

I also saw that Murat is specifically going to sue Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield -- who were presumably the witnesses most adamant about having seen him that night. Once again one asks how can he sue witnesses who might have been totally sincere in thinking they saw him. After all, he can't prove they didn't see him as his alibi is supported only by his mother. And even if his alibi were bullet-proof, we have the same old question: how can you sue someone who might have made a mistake?

EX PJ AMORAL can perhaps consider the lack of his long lunches and weak hunches in jail.

only a few weeks now to go.

is that why some blogs have 'disappeared' thinking they can avoid any sort of recriminations by just 'evaporating'??

too easy..... even notdoc could give them the kiss of life and survive.

update sunday 14 SEPTEMBER NOW TOPICAL AGAIN AND I just heard it was an 'insider' in the pj that passed the diary on to the press. also, does anyone know whether it is true or not that amaral's and co's trial has been PUT BACK.....AND IF SO, WHY?????????? :bounce: