Transcript - Gerry McCann interviewed after coming out of court in Lisbon 27 Sep 2013 (ITV News report]

ShuBob wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Portia wrote:The McCs are caught between a rock and a hard place:

Posturing as willing witnesses in the libel trial -WHICH THEY WRONGLY THOUGHT THEY COULD NEVER BE- they cannot now backtrack, stating they do not want to appear as such any longer.

What explanation would they be able to provide for a refusal to re-appear when called now?

1. we must look after the twins;
2. it interferes with our job;
3. we cannot afford the airfares-cum-hotel again;

4: Everything we say can and will be held against us during the criminal litigation intiated by SY asap

Well we had the bizarre 'Police advised them not to go' - but that has since been superseded by Kate's appearance in week one, and Gerry's in week two.  This is almost too painful to watch.

I feel the same.

I just wish they'll come to their senses and withdraw the case before the defence witnesses are heard. I suspect it'll be brutal. I don't care much for Kate and Gerry but do the twins really need to suffer even more because of the callousness of their parents? I think not  . Whatever the outcome of the case it can't be good for the parents. 

They can't withdraw. 

They would need formal permission in Court from GA, TV1 and Guerra Y Paz, which permission will not be forthcoming. I would have said: but for an enormous amount of money being thrown in by the McCs; but given that their offer of a settlement was kicked out before, GA c.s. can be expected to see the whole charade through till the very end. 

GA has lost everything that made his life worthwhile. He has nothing left to lose, but his honor. 

In Portugal, he's close to becoming a national hero. TV1 an G&P will support him to the hilt

Together, they will not give an inch

It is a pity, but it was to be expected, that the McCs would be unable to see the man for what he's worth. 

They should have left well alone

But that's not within their character, Portia. Is it?
Or, rather, not within their situation.
IMO it's more than obvious, that they know [know] what has happened, whatever it was.
And they keep digging, whilst in a hole. There seem to be no alternatives for them.
Protection? I don't know. More a matter of circumstances and bandwagon-jumping, if you ask me.
IMO there's a 3rd person involved, but I don't dare point a finger without proof.
Voilà.

Châtelaine wrote:But that's not within their character, Portia. Is it?
Or, rather, not within their situation.
IMO it's more than obvious, that they know [know] what has happened, whatever it was.
And they keep digging, whilst in a hole. There seem to be no alternatives for them.
Protection?  I don't know. More a matter of circumstances and bandwagon-jumping, if you ask me.
IMO there's a 3rd person involved, but I don't dare point a finger without proof.
Voilà.

3rd person? I'm intrigued. Not even a tiny clue Chatelaine?

Not now, Hicks.
I'm not jesting nor provoking.
It's the only alternative to an accident.
And it's probably still an accident.
IMO. IMO.

There's certainly more than a third person involved in whatever went on back in April or May 2007.

Something certainly compelled most of the group to help their friends out, if nothing more than colluding to create the "timeline" and of course Tanner's infamous bundleman sighting, which the McCanns used as proof positive of abduction, though in my opinion, either Tanner did not see any such person, or she did and she knew who it was.

I think Diane Webster was probably the only member of the group who was initially clueless about what was going on, yet again, in my opinion.

Richard Branson was recently on television, promoting the legalisation of class A drugs. He cited Portugal as a role model. I didn't know Portugal gave a green light to drug use until he mentioned it.

Edited my post as I see Marconi's has been deleted

As far as hiding the body in the event of an accident, some people have speculated that perhaps the neglect angle made the parents panic about the consequences to their careers, others have speculated that perhaps if sedatives were used that would also have an impact on their careers.  On a more sinister note, the infamous Gasper statement has led some to speculate that perhaps Madeleine suffered some sort of abuse that would have shown in an autopsy and this led to the cover up.

All of this is of course speculation

Harriet94 wrote:Richard Branson was recently on television, promoting the legalisation of class A drugs. He cited Portugal as a role model. I didn't know Portugal gave a green light to drug use until he mentioned it.

The same Portugal he rubbished when defending the McCanns????

Well, well, well!

susible wrote:Edited my post as I see Marconi's has been deleted

As far as hiding the body in the event of an accident, some people have speculated that perhaps the neglect angle made the parents panic about the consequences to their careers, others have speculated that perhaps if sedatives were used that would also have an impact on their careers.  On a more sinister note, the infamous Gasper statement has led some to speculate that perhaps Madeleine suffered some sort of abuse that would have shown in an autopsy and this led to the cover up.

All of this is of course speculation

And plausible motives IMO.

Forensically, it will not be possible to prove abuse in the absence of tissue, bar broken bones/ligaments in the pelvic area;

Nor, given a corpse, will it be forensically possible to prove who killed her by now

So, there we have it. It will be conjecture and conjecture only

And therein lies the rub, for conjecture the whole affair is to remain, impossible to blow away by proven facts, hard evidence

'Find the body, and prove we did it'

Indeed

Portia wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Portia wrote:The McCs are caught between a rock and a hard place:

Posturing as willing witnesses in the libel trial -WHICH THEY WRONGLY THOUGHT THEY COULD NEVER BE- they cannot now backtrack, stating they do not want to appear as such any longer.

What explanation would they be able to provide for a refusal to re-appear when called now?

1. we must look after the twins;
2. it interferes with our job;
3. we cannot afford the airfares-cum-hotel again;

4: Everything we say can and will be held against us during the criminal litigation intiated by SY asap

Well we had the bizarre 'Police advised them not to go' - but that has since been superseded by Kate's appearance in week one, and Gerry's in week two.  This is almost too painful to watch.

I feel the same.

I just wish they'll come to their senses and withdraw the case before the defence witnesses are heard. I suspect it'll be brutal. I don't care much for Kate and Gerry but do the twins really need to suffer even more because of the callousness of their parents? I think not  . Whatever the outcome of the case it can't be good for the parents. 

They can't withdraw. 

They would need formal permission in Court from GA, TV1 and Guerra Y Paz, which permission will not be forthcoming. I would have said: but for an enormous amount of money being thrown in by the McCs; but given that their offer of a settlement was kicked out before, GA c.s. can be expected to see the whole charade through till the very end. 

GA has lost everything that made his life worthwhile. He has nothing left to lose, but his honor. 

In Portugal, he's close to becoming a national hero. TV1 an G&P will support him to the hilt

Together, they will not give an inch

It is a pity, but it was to be expected, that the McCs would be unable to see the man for what he's worth. 

They should have left well alone

   
IMO your post Portia is spot on.

Brilliant post, Portia. 
It may also account for Ms. Duarte's peculiar demeanour. She is Portuguese, after all. I don't believe that she is a monster, she knows what Amaral has suffered and I think she now regrets her involvement. She'll have to live with herself afterwards. 
She seems rather shaken herself.

And it seems to me there's no love lost between her and GM.
Au contraire.

The Slave wrote:Brilliant post, Portia. 

It may also account for Ms. Duarte's peculiar demeanour. She is Portuguese, after all.

I don't believe that she is a monster, she knows what Amaral has suffered and I think she now regrets her involvement.

She'll have to live with herself afterwards. She seems rather shaken herself.

25 April 2012

"Everyone believes I am defending a father and mother that killed the daughter and got rid of the corpse,” the McCann’s Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte said.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/04/madeleine-mccann-portugal-london-kidnapping-disappearance/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Madeleine-mccann-investigation-best-opportunity-find-missing-girl/story?id=16208155

The Slave wrote:Brilliant post, Portia. 
It may also account for Ms. Duarte's peculiar demeanour. She is Portuguese, after all. I don't believe that she is a monster, she knows what Amaral has suffered and I think she now regrets her involvement. She'll have to live with herself afterwards. 
She seems rather shaken herself.

She may not be a monster but she's self serving, and in the end it consumes her.

Au contraire, I dont believe she gives two monkeys about Amaral, or anyone for that matter because there are other defendants in this trial.
Look how she continues to badmouth him, making snide remarks about his hidden profit.  That's not behavior of someone who's reformed or regretted her involvement.
Bear in mind the underhanded way she employed to get the case accepted by going to a young inexperienced Judge, behind closed doors dead secretive about it, without giving defendant warning.
All cases are judged for its feasibility/plausibility on prima facie to go further or not.  
She knew exactly what she was doing when she filed it with who she did, given that she was rejected once before being accepted by this inadequately skilled if not downright inept judge.

Actually the bad decision of the young judge did them no favour in the end.
They're now squarely stuck between a rock and a very hard place, with big dent in reputation and in the pocket errr I mean Fund.
Instead of improving portfolio  ironically ID managed to wreck her credibility and integrity if not her entire good name.
She'd have gained considerable critics because of her unscrupulous methods; not least because she accepted this pair of notorious clients, but because of the dirty tactics she resorted to, then went on to compound that disgraceful behavior by unreasonably refusing to return book stocks causing the other side a lot of grief and pain to regain their rightful property.

Yet, she wonders why the hostility towards her, and thus her infamous above statement.  She just does not get it that people abhor dirty tactics.
Her statement comes across not as someone who regrets her clients rather as someone who feels wrongly maligned.
Bad choice of clients may be an error in restrospect, but  dirty tactics aren't that.

If she looks shaken (which isnt visible to me) it can only be because she feels sorry for herself, for the mess she got herself into.
People credit her with capacity to feel for Amaral. I don't believe she has any capacity for anyone except herself.
I dont trust her far as I can spit and would lump her type with CR, vultures of the same feathers.

eta: What kind of lawyer carries a brolly around in all weather?
Horror of Horrors she used it to shelter fragrant kate who's head taller than her. If that is not bootlicking I don't know what is.
Most clients hold their lawyers in some kind of esteems, but this case in question, Isabel demeans herself by pandering to her clients.

Her remark about GA having hidden the money nicely takes the attention off the Ltd.Co which has to date not published transparent accounts as promised.

A donation just when they started this case, from a former KGB agent who'd just bought the Evening Standard for instance.
The income from the book Madeleine for instance.

Where exactly is that money Ms Healy? How much was it?

tigger wrote:Her remark about GA having hidden the money nicely takes the attention off the Ltd.Co which has to date not published transparent accounts as promised.

A donation just when they started this case, from a former KGB agent who'd just bought the Evening Standard for instance.
The income from the book Madeleine for instance.

Where exactly is that money Ms Healy?  How much was it?  

Was Kate hiding her book profit and gave her the idea it can be done? Judging others by her standard?

I take you point, Aiyoyo. 
This saga is getting to me. It's interminable. It's frustrating. 
What are S.Y. up to I wonder.?
They've spent millions of OUR money on this farce.

The Slave wrote:I take you point, Aiyoyo. 
This saga is getting to me. It's interminable. It's frustrating. 
What are S.Y. up to I wonder.?
They've spent millions of OUR money on this farce.

IMO, protecting someone high up, someone who has some sort of link to the non-entities that are the McCanns, who would be exposed if the McCanns were brought to justice. IMO of course.

Sceptic wrote:Is it just me or does the portuguese journalists line of questioning and gerrys response inducate some developments in the investigation are imminent.

Sceptic, I had this impression too. Besides we could see Amaral coming out of the tribunal, phoning somebody and smiling happily( the day before?)
Imo, something is about to happen now,, at the beginning of October. At least it is what I pray for.
The Yard was informing once on a 3 months and the last time was on July the 4th.
I hope they will not say : we had 38 persons of interest and we have 37 now.
I would shoot myself.


All on my oinion!

Why was Gerry McCann in Portugal?
Why was Gerry McCann in Portugal?
30 September 2013 | Posted by Joana Morais Leave a Comment

«Dra Duarte said she made yesterday [26.9.2013] a request for the complainant G. McCann who is coming from the UK (she insisted twice on this) to be heard.» Anna Guedes report, McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 5, 27 September 2013

«The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: “I can confirm Gerry McCann is hoping to give evidence.”» Daily Star, Jerry Lawton, Madeleine's dad, Gerry McCann jets in to 'help find the truth', 27 September 2013

«The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, said it was important that he be heard. She added: "I asked because I don't have two witnesses that I have appointed, so I have asked the court to substitute the two witnesses by Gerry, because nowadays he can give evidence."» BBC, Alison Roberts, Gerry McCann ready to testify amid £1m libel case delay, 27 September 2013

«The judge agreed to an adjournment because a member of one of the lawyers' families had a medical issue. Mr McCann was told the news as he arrived at the court in Lisbon after an early morning flight from the UK. He headed back to the airport. He said outside court: "Obviously we are disappointed. If I get another opportunity to be heard I will be back and will answer the questions I'm asked.» Sky News, Martin Brunt, Madeleine McCann: Gerry's Evidence Stalled, 27 September 2013

1 - In the case of substitution of any of the witnesses, the statement is not allowed without five days having elapsed from the date the opposing party was notified, unless the opposing party waives that deadline; if it is not legally possible the adjournment of the examination, in order to respect that deadline, the substitution shall be of no effect, by requirement of the opposing party.
2 - It is not admissible the examination by letter of witnesses proposed in substitution of the ones originally submitted.
3 - The provisions of n.º 1 does not affect the possibility of the judge to order an examination, pursuant to article 526.º.

1 - When, in the course of the action, there is reason to assume that a particular person, not submitted as a witness, has knowledge of important facts for the good decision of the cause, the judge shall order that it is notified to testify.
2 - The statement can only take place after five days have elapsed, if any of the parties requests the setting of a deadline for the examination.

Articles 510.º and 526.º of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, formerly known as articles 631.º and 645.º respectively in the previous CPC. No changes in both articles.

Effective Date: 01-09-2013 * Law nº 41/2013 of 26 of June 2013, published in Diário da República, 1st Series, nº 121, of 26 of June 2013 [PDF]

---

ITV, 27.09.2013

Transcript courtesy of the McCann Files/Nigel Moore

João C. Rodrigues: Hello. So, Gerry, I'm sure you was not expecting that?

Gerry McCann: No, errm... but we are where we are, so... we'll look forward to the next date.

João C. Rodrigues: Did you understand what happened?

Gerry McCann: I think, errr... Isabel will be able to explain that better.

Martin Brunt: Are you feeling disappointed?

Gerry McCann: Obviously we're disappointed, yeah, sure.

João C. Rodrigues: Are you coming back?

Gerry McCann: If I get the opportunity to be heard I'll certainly come back.

Martin Brunt: What is it you want to say to the judge who is in these proceedings?

Isabel Duarte: (interrupts) Nothing.

Gerry McCann: I'll answer the questions that I'm asked, Martin.

João C. Rodrigues: But maybe do you have new expectations about finding Madeleine?

Gerry McCann: I think, you know, all the investigation enquiries are being directed to Metropolitan Police at this time.

João C. Rodrigues: So, you are quite with the hope about what is going to happen in Portugal in a few... in the coming days?

Gerry McCann: Sorry, I missed that.

João C. Rodrigues: You have some hope of what is going to develop in the coming days?

Gerry McCann: I would just direct you to the Metropolitan Police. They're very much dealing with all enquiries regarding the investigation.

Martin Brunt: Gerry, why is it important that you give evidence at this trial?

Gerry McCann: Well, the law's changed and I think, errr... I think Kate and I know better than anyone else, errr... what we've experienced and what we've gone through and the facts of the file and, errm... the damage that's been caused to the search for Madeleine.

João C. Rodrigues: That justifies another coming back to Portugal?

Gerry McCann: We'll do what it takes.

---

Gerry McCann could not have testified on the 27 of September according to article 510.º of the CPP, which clearly states that «In the case of substitution of any of the witnesses, the statement is not allowed without five days having elapsed from the date the opposing party was notified, unless the opposing party waives this deadline (...)». According to reports from inside the court said request was only made one day before Gerry McCann arrived in Lisbon. So unless we are to believe Mrs. Isabel Duarte failed to inform her client, which I very much doubt, there was no legal way foreseen in the current, or former for that matter, Civil Procedure Code for Gerry McCann to have testified on the 27. Was this trip just a mere publicity stunt? It seemed a poor one, even if it was echoed and slightly distorted, as usual, in the UK media. The question that remains is: Why was Gerry McCann in Portugal?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

The Slave wrote:I take you point, Aiyoyo. 
This saga is getting to me. It's interminable. It's frustrating. 
What are S.Y. up to I wonder.?
They've spent millions of OUR money on this farce.

IMO, protecting someone high up, someone who has some sort of link to the non-entities that are the McCanns, who would be exposed if the McCanns were brought to justice. IMO of course.

I believe this as well.
Mr Amaral tells us that the British police working in Portugal were 'invited' to sign official documents (official secrets act?)
Most if not all Ocean Club employees were sacked. There was talk of the British Secret Services being present in PDL just after M disappeared.
A government spinner was required to speak on the MC'S behalf, quite possibly to make sure that the MC'S never uttered a word or give any indication about 'x'.

I recall the Brit couple who, early one morning, saw that black 2-3ft package taken out on a jetski, to an 'official' looking boat.

I personally think that this is the reason GM appears so smug, knowing that he and his wife have the weight of the British establishment behind them.

It was a Labour government back in 2007. I have read very disturbing things related to that government.
Only hearsay of course.

BTW, if the above is true then SY-perhaps even with good intentions- will be unable to penetrate the wall surrounding this case.