Re: Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way!

by Cath Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:43 am

bluj1515 wrote:Also, I think he is wishing now he had gone with a lawyer who is a libel specialist and who has tried libel cases in the past.

I'm not sure, but it looks as if that lawyer is a criminal defense lawyer. He's defended him in the Leonor Cipriano torture case and he's going to defend him in the Silva case as well.
If GA'd taken a libel specialist, he'd probably been advised to make a deal.
This lawyer seems to be used to the system that the Court takes the words of a policeman for granted, without any evidence to back it up.
Look at those policemen's (& former policemen's) statements. They state their opinion, they don't provide evidence to back up their claims. That's because they can't and it looks like they aren't used to it either.

A young and female judge, sticking to facts and the law, isn't what they were hoping for.

by Sabot Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:24 am

Cath wrote:
bluj1515 wrote:Also, I think he is wishing now he had gone with a lawyer who is a libel specialist and who has tried libel cases in the past.

I'm not sure, but it looks as if that lawyer is a criminal defense lawyer. He's defended him in the Leonor Cipriano torture case and he's going to defend him in the Silva case as well.
If GA'd taken a libel specialist, he'd probably been advised to make a deal.
This lawyer seems to be used to the system that the Court takes the words of a policeman for granted, without any evidence to back it up.
Look at those policemen's (& former policemen's) statements. They state their opinion, they don't provide evidence to back up their claims. That's because they can't and it looks like they aren't used to it either.

A young and female judge, sticking to facts and the law, isn't what they were hoping for.

I think you are right, Cath. They are not used to having their word questioned, nor are they used to providing evidence to back up what they say. No wonder there has been so much injustice. Don't worry about who actually committed the crime. Pick a number and fit it up.

They must have the biggest "Crime Solved" rate in the world.

by Rosie Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:48 am

I do not know how his lawyer didn't tell him that he could produce any amount of sycophantic witnesses he wants, they are just that witnesses to his character, the way they see it, look at them all, they do not have any bearing on this hearing what-so-ever, what did his lawyer hope to achieve by putting all those gushing people in there? They are not actually proving that he did not commit libel and defamation are they? And that is the whole point of the case, to ascertain if libel and defamation were committed in his book, everything else is neither here nor there and I cannot understand why he called all those people and totally monopolised the whole proceedings. They could have saved a lot of time, just nominated one of them to come in take the witness stand and tell the court "Goncalo Amaral walks on water" and leave it there.

That show was really ridiculous and they are not fooling anyone, I take it the judge can read and write, has read the book, read all about Amaral in the papers, she knows the leaks came from him, she knows he is guilty of corruption, in fact she probably knows a hell of a lot more about him than we do, so that little show from those people doesn't amount to a hill of beans!
In addition to that each one of those witnesses managed to drop hm in it big time and the testimony of Amaral's star witness was an absolute joke!

All the time that Moita Flores stood there talking about Amaral what did he say which would have had any bearing on the outcome of this hearing? It emerged he was giving an opinion on a book he had not eve read!
He got carried away and gave an opinion on the window, besides the fact that this had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with this hearing, this is not what the judge wanted to hear, the judge is not there to judge Kate and Gerry, she is there to judge if Amaral has committed libel and defamed the McCanns, so what was he going on about the window for?
Turns out his opinion was rubbish anyway, he has only been to PDL once and he stood outside the window and cannot remember how low it is and then he made that stupid remark about needing four hands, legs and feet, well if there was two abductors, (which looks to be almost certain) then there was four hands legs and feet! The window is certainly large enough and low enough to pass a small child through. He made himself look stupid, very, very stupid indeed. And the arrogance of it too, how long has Flores known he was going to appear in court? He could have read the book but didn't, he could have made sure he took measurements of the window, but he didn't. the man is a fool.

by dianeh Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:51 am

Not my intention to start an unsubstantiated internet rumour, but the reason that Channel 4 would not sell the doco to TV1 was because they would not schedule it for showing. Without that guarantee, Channel 4 decided that it would sell (probably at a lesser value) to another station which aired it.

TV1 would have been able to buy the doco had they agreed in the contract to specify the time of scheduling. If they had not then screened it, they would have been subject to legal action.

Channel 4 and the McCanns (assuming they even had any input in the sale) wisely chose to sell it to a station that would show it. If TV1 had bought it and not screened it, then no other station in Portugal would have been able to screen it.

I dont know if TV1 genuinely wanted to show it or not, but their actions would indicate they didnt. And it must be pointed out that had they shown it, then it would have directly contradicted their own documentary, and would have called all of Amaral's future interviews into question as well. So although the McCann's documentary would probably have rated well for them, IMO it would have cost them a lot of money in the long run.

by Sabot Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:03 am

Perfect explanation, Dianeh. And almost certainly true.

Oh, the perfidy.

by Peaceful1 Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:09 am

Dont think amaral is going to make tone's agm in Feb is he? LOL
If I was tb, I'd be planning a showing of the Lone Ranger instead. Looks like tone will be on his own. shame..not. Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 396948

Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 396948

McCanns lawyers had amarals witness's in bits. She wasn't even trying either, she was just playing with them at this stage.
Must be like dealing with primary school children for her.
They're making her job too easy, can amaral not do any better than these? Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 466476

Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 466476

She'll be giving the McCanns a refund of their costs at this

by Cath Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:32 am

Sabot wrote:They are not used to having their word questioned, nor are they used to providing evidence to back up what they say. No wonder there has been so much injustice. Don't worry about who actually committed the crime. Pick a number and fit it up.

They must have the biggest "Crime Solved" rate in the world.

I must admit I was shocked by Paiva's statement (I know we haven't heard his full statement). I think he's younger as GA and Tavares, but it looks like he's adopted their attitude.
He's made it so d@@** clear how he thinks about people who don't do as they are told by them.

Perhaps it's got to do with the different cultures.

by maria Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:02 am

Diane

I've learned today at court that yes, TVI was very much interested in the documentary. And I DO believe them, so gready and unscruplous they are.There are documents from Menthor (the distributor).

by clairesy Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:24 pm

Turns out his opinion was rubbish anyway, he has
only been to PDL once and he stood outside the window and cannot
remember how low it is and then he made that stupid remark about
needing four hands, legs and feet, well if there was two abductors,
(which looks to be almost certain) then there was four hands legs and
feet! The window is certainly large enough and low enough to pass a
small child through. He made himself look stupid, very, very stupid
indeed.

or did he??maybe he slipped up??

if she was taken through the window would it matter if they left a trace or not??after all the scene was deliberately containment and the person who took her through the window was probably covered for anyway so.

Besides how do we know that there wasn't any evidence left from being taken through the window?

The whole case as been botched and god knows what they have got rid of in order to cover this up.If only one person did take Madeleine, and they took her through the window, traces would have been left on the window....however i would also imagine that the trace was ignored and swept under the carpet just like other things have been ignored and swept under the carpet.

Remember the mysterious finger print on the window that cops could not match to anyone??It was months later when British police went to pdl that they finally found the match.It belonged to a cop.But Portuguese police said something like...' ahhhh its ok it is an officers prints, and we have sorted it''

Hmmm yes i bet they did sort it.

Throws out the early statements by gonc that only kates prints were found on the window..he said only kates prints were found,indicating that she would have opened the window and not an abductor.

A load of lies....because if that's the case then why did they have a set of mysterious prints also??they lied yet again.Kates prints wasn't the only ones found.

by Sabot Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:44 am

Courtesy of Sans Souci and JATYK.

member is online

Joined: Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 276
Karma: 15
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Re: Early Editions
« Reply #23 Today at 5:04pm »
In my view, it is very unlikely that he would be able to bring his case to the ECHR. Just so that we are all on the same page, the relevant section is:

ARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

___________

The ECHR is to provide an independent recourse against state interference with the fundamental rights of a citizen. It is not a court of appeal if you do not happen to like the judgement of a court in a civil case.

by maria Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:00 am

I know I'm still owing you a report, but I've been catching up this thread and it seems to me that there still is some confusion re this trial.

This trial is an appeal from Amaral, Valentim de Carvalho, TVI and Guerra e Paz (the 'requested') on the injunction. The legal reason being that they were not heard during the session in which the ban/sale suspension was decided. So, they are putting forward their reasons why that injunction should be overturned. The McCanns (the 'requestors') do not need to say anything. That's why nobody will take the stand, only witnesses justifying the 'requested' points of view will have to speak. So, no McCan witnesses, they have said everything they had to say when they requested the injunction. However, they are entitled to rebuffle the arguments that the 'requested' put forward, so Isabel asks questions to all witnesses.

Today's session was postponed to the 10th of February because of some objective reasons: one of the witnesses is sick (I believe) and the respective 'requested' (I don't know which one it is) does not give up on the statement; another witness is abroad on business and the respective 'requested' (Valentim de Carvalho, I believe) does not give up on the statement; lawyers have put forward some documents and requirements that have dates to abide by and after all this, there is the judge agenda, the first available date is the 10th February.

During that session, we'll have the two missing witnesses' depositions in the morning, and final allegations in the afternoon.

by Cath Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:52 am

Thank you Maria (again).
What's this news about a new witness, Luis Frois, who's supposed to be testifying for the McCanns?
Did twitter Jon get that wrong?

by christabel Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:37 am

AMARAL DOES NOT LIE, HE DOES NOT SPEAKA THA EENGLISH NEITHER

Bennett must have done it Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 245193

Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 Theamaralpost

by Cath Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:38 am

He lies. He does speak English. I've heard his reply (yesterday) to the East Midlands BBC reporter. He's asked a question about the F** and Amaral said "nothing" then continued replying in Portuguese. Must have realised he's made a mistake as he is supposed not to understand/speak English.

by maria Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:50 am

Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

by christabel Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:52 am

Cath wrote:He lies. He does speak English. I've heard his reply (yesterday) to the East Midlands BBC reporter. He's asked a question about the F** and Amaral said "nothing" then continued replying in Portuguese. Must have realised he's made a mistake as he is supposed not to understand/speak English.

Cath, we were told by Portuguese posters on the DX, that he spoke perfect English when he wanted to.
Some of us remember Alsabella many aka's and Clawdia saying so. You have to beleive them Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 503613

Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 503613

by Cath Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:50 pm

maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thank you Maria. So I guess the rumours he's a GNR officer are wrong then.

Chris, long time ago when I was naive and didn't even consider posters might have an agenda, change translations, censor the news, I would have believed them, without questioning them.
Nowadays I don't believe anything GA's little clique is posting without first checking it myself. I've heard it with my own ears, so now it's confirmed.

by Sabot Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:56 pm

Cath wrote:
maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thank you Maria. So I guess the rumours he's a GNR officer are wrong then.

Chris, long time ago when I was naive and didn't even consider posters might have an agenda, change translations, censor the news, I would have believed them, without questioning them.
Nowadays I don't believe anything GA's little clique is posting without first checking it myself. I've heard it with my own ears, so now it's confirmed.

You are not alone, Cath. Our days of innocence are lost forever.

by Rosie Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:38 pm

maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thanks for clearing that up Maria, it seemed odd that the news started reporting that the McCanns were going to call this witness, who turns out not to be their witness at all! Then they return home without calling any witnesses, it seems that the papers completely misunderstood this hearing. So Maria many thanks again for clearing that up. Why would they call witnesses? They had said everything they needed to say, it was up to Amaral to defend his position, this he "tried" to do by turning the hearing into some kind of criminal kangaroo court, pity it backfired on him. Sometime I get so frustrated with the papers. Last week they kept reporting that Gerry lost his temper or was incandescent with rage, I looked at the interview in question and kept waiting for Gerry to lose his temper or become in the least bit irate and he answered as many questions as he could, calmly and politely and he never did lose his temper or become the slightest bit irate.

The fact that Gerry gave this other impromptu press conference as he left the court on his way to the airport bound for the UK (interview transcript is on this forum) and directly answered a lot of direct questions, it was on Sky News, yet never made the other news, what made the news was Gerry's so-called "irate" interview, when he wasn't irate!

I would suggest that those that say they are ~~rabid antis~~ "truth seekers", take a look at that interview and read the transcript here on this forum and then allow the answers to sink in, they may just learn something.

by Pedro Silva Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:40 pm

Thank you Maria.

by Hael Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:47 pm

Sabot wrote:
Cath wrote:
maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thank you Maria. So I guess the rumours he's a GNR officer are wrong then.

Chris, long time ago when I was naive and didn't even consider posters might have an agenda, change translations, censor the news, I would have believed them, without questioning them.
Nowadays I don't believe anything GA's little clique is posting without first checking it myself. I've heard it with my own ears, so now it's confirmed.

You are not alone, Cath. Our days of innocence are lost forever.

That is so true. How many of us have been subject to the manipulation of others. Our eyes have been opened to a entire new world, we never knew existed before venturing into the world wide web (used by some as the www of deceit and spin) to read about the case.
Less people are falling for the antiques and BS from GA and TB's crew. Lucky for us, just as this world wide BS is being spread, so is the awakening and disillusion of their ways.

by vee8 Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:19 pm

You want to talk about naieve? When I first took interest in this case, I originally started posting in my own bl**dy name! How stupid was that?!
Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 442460

Amaral's Appeal Hearing Gets Under way! - Page 19 442460

How I regret that now, knowing what I know about how many evil people out there have such a filthy agenda against the McCann's.

by Rosie Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:30 pm

Rosiepops wrote:
maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thanks for clearing that up Maria, it seemed odd that the news started reporting that the McCanns were going to call this witness, who turns out not to be their witness at all! Then they return home without calling any witnesses, it seems that the papers completely misunderstood this hearing. So Maria many thanks again for clearing that up. Why would they call witnesses? They had said everything they needed to say, it was up to Amaral to defend his position, this he "tried" to do by turning the hearing into some kind of criminal kangaroo court, pity it backfired on him. Sometime I get so frustrated with the papers. Last week they kept reporting that Gerry lost his temper or was incandescent with rage, I looked at the interview in question and kept waiting for Gerry to lose his temper or become in the least bit irate and he answered as many questions as he could, calmly and politely and he never did lose his temper or become the slightest bit irate.

The fact that Gerry gave this other impromptu press conference as he left the court on his way to the airport bound for the UK (interview transcript is on this forum) and directly answered a lot of direct questions, it was on Sky News, yet never made the other news, what made the news was Gerry's so-called "irate" interview, when he wasn't irate!

I would suggest that those that say they are ~~rabid antis~~ "truth seekers", take a look at that interview and read the transcript here on this forum and then allow the answers to sink in, they may just learn something.

by Catkins Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:33 pm

Hael wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Cath wrote:
maria wrote:Frois, if I'm not mistaken, is Valentim de Carvalho witness, not the McCann's. He is the one abroad.

Thank you Maria. So I guess the rumours he's a GNR officer are wrong then.

Chris, long time ago when I was naive and didn't even consider posters might have an agenda, change translations, censor the news, I would have believed them, without questioning them.
Nowadays I don't believe anything GA's little clique is posting without first checking it myself. I've heard it with my own ears, so now it's confirmed.

You are not alone, Cath. Our days of innocence are lost forever.

That is so true. How many of us have been subject to the manipulation of others. Our eyes have been opened to a entire new world, we never knew existed before venturing into the world wide web (used by some as the www of deceit and spin) to read about the case.
Less people are falling for the antiques and BS from GA and TB's crew. Lucky for us, just as this world wide BS is being spread, so is the awakening and disillusion of their ways.

Agree .........

by maria Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:08 am

I am becoming obsessed. I was here posting and reading all day. I took the dogs out and here I am again... Looking for a place to leave some information that may interest you. One of the permanent attendees in court was Duarte Levy. I was sitting on the front row, so I don't know if he would rush out the courtroom to follow anyone. Also I haven't seen him trying to get in touch with anyone.

But I learned that he is really crossed with Joana Morais. I'm here thinking that that interdiction to enter court is probably his doing, by denouncing her to the police as a troublemaker. And he is telling everyone he can her 'secrets' and that she going really nuts. Well, that one we already knew. But apparently it is becoming a really clinical case, she doesn't go out, doesn't sleep, simply doesn't move away from her computer.

What on earth could cause this? What's her drive? How can anyone take pleasure out of hurting other people, people they never even met?

by Sponsored content